Comments | bethinexile: Signal-to-Noise Ratio

lolmac in bethinexile

Signal-to-Noise Ratio

Jun 28, 2015 13:00

I've spent a lot of time over the last two days watching the #LoveWins hashtag on Twitter (where, as most of the online world knows, you get an automatic little rainbow heart easter egg on the hashtag). It's been, mostly, great -- astonishing and glorious and vibrant, a massive shout of joy ( Read more... )

shiny things, polly-ticks

Comments 32

Lothi sez anonymous June 28 2015, 17:17:31 UTC

I think your graphic is beautiful.

Re: Lothi sez lolmac June 28 2015, 17:24:51 UTC

*hugs da Lothicat*

Re: Lothi sez lothithil June 28 2015, 20:41:28 UTC

*hugs and dances and swings you 'round and 'round*

Re: Lothi sez lemonpiefirefly June 29 2015, 03:46:46 UTC

HI LOTHI!

Can I join in?
Oh. wait ... multiples are still bad, right?
;)
j/k - piles into happy dancing glitter ball crush with the both of you!

Thread 6

dieastra June 28 2015, 18:07:41 UTC

I had no idea that this decision was hovering in the air when the internet suddenly exploded on Friday afternoon. Apparently people who knew about it waited with bated breath but it really took me by surprise and took a while to sink in. Such great news though. My first reaction was: if it is that easy, why didn't they do it years ago ( ... )

lolmac June 28 2015, 21:30:42 UTC

The only way it can be "snatched away" would be an amendment to the US Constitution. Such an amendment would first have to pass Congress, and then be ratified by at least 38 of the 50 states. Prior to Friday's ruling, same-sex marriage bans only remained in 13 states.

And one of the well-established patterns of the civil rights struggle is that it is very hard to persuade people to vote away rights. This is why the conservatives originally put the bans in place: they wanted to block the right before it was seen as real, before it became something that could be taken away. Prior to the formal bans, we did not have the right to marry. It simply hadn't been banned formally, because nobody dared try ( ... )

dieastra June 28 2015, 21:36:03 UTC

With "easy" I meant, I had no idea that it was possible to have a law for the whole of US, instead of each state going painstakenly slowly one by one.

Guess Germany should hurry to not be left behind...

lolmac June 28 2015, 21:48:58 UTC

Ah, got it!

Some things can be done just once, at the federal level. Some require a majority of the states, some require a supermajority. The Founding Fathers here actually did a very good job of balancing all that out, and it's managed to stay pretty well locked down over the many decades since then (with notable bad patches).

The whole point of the Supreme Court is that when they say something on a point of existing law, it's final -- that's why they're the *Supreme* Court of the US. But they can't actually make a law, and they can only change it by clarifying the interpretation based on existing precedent, or by killing it, also based on existing precedent ( ... )

Thread 5

beccadg June 28 2015, 18:40:21 UTC

I suspect it would be regarded as blasphemous by the inevitable vocal minority.

I share your suspicion, but then I don't think they have the slightest clue about how to truly follow the faith. I think your graphic is both beautiful, and very appropriate. <3

lolmac June 28 2015, 20:58:53 UTC

*happy glow* Feel free to share the graphic with anyone who might enjoy it! That's why I made it.

draco_somnians June 28 2015, 20:13:19 UTC

Your graphic is lovely. :)

Fellow beer snob, the Miller and Heineken images are brilliant! The Miller one did indeed take me a minute but then it was wonderful. :)

lolmac June 28 2015, 21:33:15 UTC

Thank you so much! Feel free to share the graphic with anyone who might enjoy it. The underlying images were all on Google search, and the quote is, let's say, definitely past its copyright date. *G*

I do wish Guinness had done a cool graphic, but oh well. They still make great beer!

campylobacter June 28 2015, 20:14:48 UTC

I've been faving the #LoveWins gay Twitter party & hope transgender rights will next benefit from the momentum. I also hope to soon see LGBT workplace equality & job security so that no one must fear losing their livelihood due to bigotry.

OMG I haven't been on Ravelry in a while, but it's so like Casey & Jess to stand up to haters.
http://www.ravelry.com/discuss/for-the-love-of-ravelry/3228960/1-25
817 agrees/123 disagrees on the OP; obsessed haters clicking 'disagree' on happy replies LOL

Also on Twitter: Nothing like a rainbow necktie on a Siamese kitten to filter out bigots:
@tinykittensHQ
"829 people have unliked our Facebook page so far for posting this photo.
#lovewins"
https://twitter.com/tinykittensHQ/status/615204082320478209

lolmac June 28 2015, 20:54:00 UTC

*smacks LJ* Dumb LJ put your comment in the screening queue! Admittedly, that's because the security settings on this comm are turned up fairly high, so links often get screened.

Oh, Ravelry, I do love it so. (I spend almost all my time there on LSG, so I forget that there's a lot of other stuff on the site.) Casey and the mods (should be a rock band) were encouraging the pearl-clutchers to "click disagree and move on" (rather than engage directly). By the time the thread was five minutes old, it was a badge of honour to get a minimum number of 'disagrees'. My "covenant flag" graphic, which is about a thousand posts in, only had 5 the last time I looked -- most of the trolls had apparently just worn themselves out by then.

Also, I just Friended the Tiny Kittens page. Guh teh cute

campylobacter June 29 2015, 13:59:07 UTC

Yeah, even though I'm a community moderator & have had an account since 2003, LJ won't whitelist my comments on high security settings.

It's dismaying to see such hate & ignorance still persist among homophobes. Sometimes I think it's because they don't know any LGBT people IRL.

KITTENS, right? LIKE ALL THE KITTENS.