Ionathus's Random Banter #249 -- Directionless Rambling Is Now Mandatory

[Ionathus]

I only found out about the northern lights storm an hour ago. If I’d had a day or two to psych myself up, I’d probably be out in the dark countryside right now watching it — alas, I was already in bed when the thought first occurred to me, and I’m too close to light pollution to make that trip work now.

Fun northern lights story: I was driving home from a party as a teenager once and I saw the northern lights, so I parked on a dark road and got out to look at them. They stretched across the sky, in big multicolored bands. Incredible definition and vibrancy, just on a random night, no warning or forecast.

After maybe five minutes I thought “that’s neat” and got back in and kept driving. I’ve never seen anything even close to that quality of aurora again, and I’ve been kicking myself ever since for underappreciating it and not staying to watch for longer. Ah, the follies of youth.

[Rynjin]

This just underscores your issue here. You are conflating marriage and wedding. A wedding is a ceremony. A wedding is immaterial to marriage. You can easily be married without a wedding, and it happens every day in virtually every courthouse in America, and other countries.

The vast majority of countries, both modern and historical, have understood the value in having special right and priveleges for marriage. Rater disagrees. Can you please consider, for just a moment, that when a massive chunk of the entire human race across various cultures says one thing and you say "pft, I don't think so", that just maybe you're the one who's wrong?

Ah, the good ol' "a bunch of people agree with me, so I must be objectively right" argument, which has certainly never been abused and is definitely not the primary source of most oppression since the dawn of human history.

A large portion of the world says certain subsets of people should be oppressed and/or eradicated, too. I ain't gonna say they're in the right just because there's a lot of them.

Marriage is no more sacred and objectively important/necessary than any other tradition people happen to be attached to.

[Form]

Ah, the good ol' "a bunch of people agree with me, so I must be objectively right" argument, which has certainly never been abused and is definitely not the primary source of most oppression since the dawn of human history.

A large portion of the world says certain subsets of people should be oppressed and/or eradicated, too. I ain't gonna say they're in the right just because there's a lot of them.

Marriage is no more sacred and objectively important/necessary than any other tradition people happen to be attached to.

Yeah, I wouldn't go into that direction. It's really upping the ante and opening the door to some misplaced moral outrage. The discussion wasn't about any of that, it was just about marriage and associated legal benefits and benefits extended by private companies. However, Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, so that point still stands.

It's not about marriage being sacred/not sacred, it's just about a package of legal benefits that come with marriage. I imagine there are good reasons for that, though I'd have to actually look into what those legal benefits are, the reasoning behind it and probably the historical context too in order to gain an in depth understanding of them, which I honestly can't be bothered to do.

[DavidSh]

The northern lights are just barely visible from where I am. They would be prominent, but the combination of clouds and light pollution mean the patterns are subtle and not very colorful, despite covering almost half the sky.

Going outside to see them was worth it, but only because they're so rare here.

Similar here, from New Jersey, after the clouds finally broke. Broad, very faint stripes rising from the northern horizon. Just a hint of color, but generally not nearly bright enough for my color vision to work. From a site dark enough to see the Milky Way it would have been more impressive. Here there are too many streetlights to get much dark adaptation.

But it's only the second time I've seen them, after a February trip to Norway one year.

[Peelee]

Ah, the good ol' "a bunch of people agree with me, so I must be objectively right" argument, which has certainly never been abused and is definitely not the primary source of most oppression since the dawn of human history.

It's less "a lot of people agree with me" and more "you're trying to argue that roads are just lines on a map and why can't we just not travel on roads because some people have nad thoughts about roads. Instead, we should just clear long stretches connecting places and pave them".

Not a perfect analogy, but nothing will be. But you know what, if you want you can just completely discard it and everything o said about it being a near-universal and historical precedent, because every other argument I had held up, while the only argument against was "some people may judge you for being married in incredibly specific conditions that you don't have to disclose to anyone".

Anyway. Much less cloud cover right now and i can actually still see the northern lights. It's very blue. And big. And uniform. Except for one yellow spot.

[Keltest]

It's less "a lot of people agree with me" and more "you're trying to argue that roads are just lines on a map and why can't we just not travel on roads because some people have nad thoughts about roads. Instead, we should just clear long stretches connecting places and pave them".

Not a perfect analogy, but nothing will be. But you know what, if you want you can just completely discard it and everything o said about it being a near-universal and historical precedent, because every other argument I had held up, while the only argument against was "some people may judge you for being married in incredibly specific conditions that you don't have to disclose to anyone".

Anyway. Much less cloud cover right now and i can actually still see the northern lights. It's very blue. And big. And uniform. Except for one yellow spot.

That yellow spot sounds just awful. Im glad we still have our cloud cover to protect us from it.

[Rater202]

It's less "a lot of people agree with me" and more "you're trying to argue that roads are just lines on a map and why can't we just not travel on roads because some people have nad thoughts about roads. Instead, we should just clear long stretches connecting places and pave them".

"There's only one road leading to this one place even though there's no good reason beyond tradition, many of which aren't exactly in practice anymore, for there to only be the one road. We should really build more roads so it's more convenient for people to get to that place."

If the soldier and his girlfriend have been living together for ten years and have a kid, they shouldn't have to be married for her to get survivor benefits.

[LaZodiac]

I think we're kinda missing the forest for the trees here.

It's less "marriage is bad because it has all these legal things tied up in it, and some of those things shouldn't necessarily be tied to marriage" and more "why can't my friends visit me in the hospital? Why only my family and spouse?"

That was my point that started all of this nonsense arguing. It doesn't make sense that some of the things society lets married people do is ONLY for married people.

Also I have a funny story involving a seagull if y'all want to have a fun conversation .

[Peelee]

there's no good reason beyond tradition

Yes, if you continue to ignore all the reasons then there's no reason. All people should be ableuto designate random other people that they can tell things to without rhe style being able to compel testimony! And friends often make all major life decisions together!

If the soldier and his girlfriend have been living together for ten years and have a kid, they shouldn't have to be married for her to get survivor benefits.

Why? They could get married and live exactly the same way with zero differences and not only does the spouse get significantly more benefits. But you absolutely insist that some people where may think poorly of them if they were married, and somehow nobody anywhere will ever think poorly of them being unmarried.

You know what? Here. (202) 628-4160. That's the phone number for the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBT advocacy group that has been prominent foe decades. They were directly involved with fighting for the legal right to marry. Call them up, ask kf you can speak to someone who can talk to you about why they fought to get married. See what they say about the idea that it was only desired because it was a symbol and that wasn't fair. I not being sarcastic. I'm not setting you up for a trap. I am trying to get you to talk to someone who can probably teach you exactly why you are wrong better than i can. If you want to provide me a state (or territory or region if you're not in US) then i can look up and find local centers in the major cities you can call or even potentially visit in-person to learn things about instead kf having this preconceived notion based on nothing but your own opinions and observations. The LGBT community, especially those that were around in the 80s and 90s, is highly likely to be able to explain it to you better than i can, since it was significantly more personal for them and they had decades to refine their arguments specifically against people who made your exact claims.

It's less "marriage is bad because it has all these legal things tied up in it, and some of those things shouldn't necessarily be tied to marriage" and more "why can't my friends visit me in the hospital? Why only my family and spouse?"

They can. Your friends can visit you in the hospital. When it's restricted to only family and spouses, that's because for medical od logistical reasons its much better for nobody to visit and they ade willing to grant exceptions to spouses as a courtesy. Like i said about other issues (eg immigration and naturalization restrictions being eased), it's a courtesy that would not exist if it weren't included in marriage/immediate family.

Also I have a funny story involving a seagull if y'all want to have a fun conversation .

I WOULD LOVE THAT!

[Rater202]

Peelee I'm not gonna lie your entire argument for why these things are gated behind marriage is coming across as "we keep them exclusive to marriage because they're exclusive to marriage" and citing the struggle for people to have the right to get married isn't exactly a good support for that because... Having the right to get married is important no matter what benefits are attached to it and I have in fact seen (gay) people claim that it's important for more symbolic reasons than practical.

Unless you're arguing that making alternative routes to those benefits is invalidating that struggle, but "other people don't have to struggle as much as I did" is a fallacious argument to begin with.

Like, honestly, I'm finding you insisting that that struggle was solely for the practical benefits of marriage, for the material benefits that are arbitrarily gated behind that contract rather than the union itself, is undervaluing that struggle more than making it so that you don't need to be married to get some of those benefits would. You're essentially arguing that marriage is a transaction and that hasn't been true for centuries.

[LaZodiac]

The LGBT community, especially those that were around in the 80s and 90s, is highly likely to be able to explain it to you better than i can, since it was significantly more personal for them and they had decades to refine their arguments specifically against people who made your exact claims.

They can. Your friends can visit you in the hospital. When it's restricted to only family and spouses, that's because for medical od logistical reasons its much better for nobody to visit and they ade willing to grant exceptions to spouses as a courtesy. Like i said about other issues (eg immigration and naturalization restrictions being eased), it's a courtesy that would not exist if it weren't included in marriage/immediate family.

I WOULD LOVE THAT!

The reason people want equal rights in marriage is the same as why people wants the right to be gay in the military- because society at large used the fact that queer folk were disallowed from these things as a form of bigotry, so destroying those barriers is a net positive overall. THIS DOES NOT MEAN that joining the military is a good thing- the military as a complex is fundamentally kinda ****ed by its very nature. But society writ large has decided it is good- and come hell or high water, the decision to allow everyone access to do it is a sign of bigotry being defeated and thus good.

It is very, very possible for good things to come from bad things sometimes, and this is one of them. While I don't fully think marriage and all the legally binding things attached to it are BAD, it is simply a true statement that even if someone believes marriage is a bad institution for various reasons, they do still understand that equal rights allowing for gay folk to get married is a net positive for society. "It is good we have equal rights, now lets work on divesting these rights from an institution with bigotry so easily baked into it", you know?

Why can't friends who are like family to me visit in those logistical situations, but my family can? That's the point I was getting at. And yes I'm well aware of the naturalization thing, trust me- that's not what I'm arguing against, though it wouldn't be bad to have a naturalization/immigration sponsor equivalent that is (hah) divorced from the idea of marriage imo.

Please let this be the final statement on this discussion.

ANYWAY. Seagull story.

-------------------

Yesterday I went out for a doctor's appointment. The clinic is in this strip of buildings, and near it is a pizza hut. It was around 8:25 at the time, and when we arrived I noticed a seagull standing patiently at the door. I left the car and approached, observing, because birds doing things that are slightly atypical of regular birds is a fun thing to watch.

Spoiler: photo 1, observation of gull

Show

The seagull was just standing there. No other gulls were around. There were people about, making noise and cleaning up trash revealed by the snow finally being gone. One rather rude lady did a racism at someone for daring to drop a candy wrapper. Very unpleasant, especially since I knew the lady from previous moments of my life. The person she was racist against later tried to spit on her car but didn't know which one was hers and got the wrong one.

Anyway, the customer. He just sat there. Occasionally he honk, occasionally he bonk. It wasn't a classic gull noise you'd hear at the sea-side, or from later seagulls that will show up. It was more of a honk, definitely, sometimes extended in length. His pecking usually focused at the divide between winder and glass, but sometimes was up on the glass, and always a double-rap of "th-thok".

Intrigued I decided to approach to take a better picture. Once I got up to the pizza hut's bespoke sidewalk area, the seagull began to leave- not in a flurry of wings and rush and panic, but in a tentative sort of waddle away from the door to get a better look at me (I was attempting to hide behind the architecture of the building so as to not spook the customer).

Spoiler: Photo 2, observed by gull

Show

I then returned to my initial safe distance, and the customer immediately got back in line to continue his task of honking and bonking. He really wanted that pizza, and near as I can tell simply was trying to perform the human ritual. The pizza hut is no longer an eat-in restaurant, instead just a massive building that has had all of its seating area blocked off and reduced to a singular kiosk window. People go to the door, knock, come in, get pizza, leave. So the customer was attempting to do similar, and clearly confused about why it was not working. No za! Why no za!? He do the thing!!

My medical appointment was at 10, so I had some time to kill, and as such I saw no reason not to sit down with my back to one of the strip-mall's pillars and just kinda watch.

Some highlights from this endeavor include;

1: Another gull appeared at some point, and got close to the customer. The customer swiped him away with a dismissive wing swing that held the clearest "yo **** off" I've ever seen from an animal.
2: Another gull appeared at some point, got close, and straight up started screaming in the customer's face. The customer ruffled up about it and screamed back and when their near total scream-argument ended, the aggressor left and the customer got back into position.
3: Another gull, a more normal gull, appeared and briefly roosted up on one of the lamp posts that don't have any light sources. He seemed far more normal as far as birds go. Here is a picture of that.

Finally, as 9:40 rolled around, I got up to go, and bid the customer farewell. I took one final picture, and then told the customer I hoped he got his pizza. I picked up the soda bottle that was present on the ground before the litterer showed up that the racist lady was mad about- notably she didn't pick it up herself, instead just being racist about it- and took it into the dollar general to throw it away. When I left the dollar general the customer was gone, having left as I turned to leave myself.

Someone in another chat asked if the seagull was actually my familiar, but sadly I didn't recognize it.

Spoiler: Photo 3, so long customer

Show

[Peelee]

Peelee I'm not gonna lie your entire argument for why these things are gated behind marriage is coming across as "we keep them exclusive to marriage because they're exclusive to marriage"

The things that are exclusive to marriage afe exclusive to marriage because, again, they would not exist without marriage. There is zero reason outside of legally recognizing an entity as a stable family to ease up on immigration restrictions, or to protect a non-medical/legal/religious exemption to the state's ability to compel testimony. Again, you are arguing from a position of pure entitlement - you think these things that have no reason to exist outside of families should be able to exist for everyone. Which, hey, they even can if they get married!

You're no longer Skinner. You're now Ryan from The Office saying "i wish my ipod could make phone calls. No, i don't want an iPhone!" Your ideal solution already exists and you refuse to accept it and dismiss it as "nusea piece of paper" at the same time.

Unless you're arguing that making alternative routes to those benefits is invalidating that struggle, but "other people don't have to struggle as much as I did" is a fallacious argument to begin with.

Like, honestly, I'm finding you insisting that that struggle was solely for the practical benefits of marriage, for the material benefits that are arbitrarily gated behind that contract rather than the union itself, is undervaluing that struggle more than making it so that you don't need to be married to get some of those benefits would. You're essentially arguing that marriage is a transaction and that hasn't been true for centuries.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Rater202;26010384]having the right to get married is important no matter what benefits are attached to it and I have in fact seen (gay) people claim that it's important for more symbolic reasons than practical.
(202) 628-4160.

It's cool you've seen gay people claim that. I've seen gay people claim gay people shouldn't be able to marry at all. I've seen gay people claim that homosexuality should be a crime. Fun fact, i keep saying "the LGBT community" and i gave the number to one of the biggest LGBT advocacy organizations in the US because "i heard from this random gay person one time" is bad data.

[Anonymouswizard]

It's less "a lot of people agree with me" and more "you're trying to argue that roads are just lines on a map and why can't we just not travel on roads because some people have nad thoughts about roads.

You do realise that up to this point you're giving a pretty good description of Right to Roam? (the idea that trespassing for the sake of transit should be legal.)

Actually putting it like that, Rater's idea that no benefit should be exclusive to marriage isn't a bad idea. It might not be practical to implement, but doing so would be a good thing.

And if people still want the easy and convenient road of marriage he's not saying to dig it up when letting people cut through the woods.

[Rater202]

"cheese would not exist without dairy farmers, therefor you must buy a cow if you want cheese."

It only exists because "X" is not a good reason for it to only be available through X, something that some people can't do or may not want to do for a variety of reasons.

And honestly, can you look me in the eyes and tell me that if there was something called "the contract" that had all of the legal and social benefits of marriage behind it and that any two people could get for any reason, but marriage existed and still had those benefits and LGBT people were forbidden from marriage, that the LGBT community would not have still fought all those years for the right to get married?

Beyond that... I don't want to assume that you're misrepresenting my argument in ways that make me look like a selfish, mentally deficient manchild on purpose but it is very clear to me that there's a breakdown in communication because the things you are insisting are my argument are not the argument I am trying to make and there is very clearly something I am not saying right.

[Form]

There's something strangely depressing and sad about a pizza hut with nothing but a lone seagull standing front of it.

You know, if we were to give it a pretentious title (something in French obviously) and make it black and white we could probably pass it off as a modern art piece of some sort!

[LaZodiac]

There's something strangely depressing and sad about a pizza hut with nothing but a lone seagull standing front of it.

You know, if we were to give it a pretentious title (something in French obviously) and make it black and white we could probably pass it off as a modern art piece of some sort!

I mean I've been referring to the seagull as the customer, I'm basically throwing myself into this vibe feet first.

It definitely has a sad vibe to it, but it was also very... inspiring? Nature is beautiful and animals are cool. It reminded me of a raven up here that follows traffic safety laws, walking down the sidewalk and waiting for the light to cross the road, and even looking both ways before doing so.

[Peelee]

Why can't friends who are like family to me visit in those logistical situations, but my family can? That's the point I was getting at.

.... Imean, because of medical and logistical reasons. For example, for a medical reason, let's say a patient has isolated precautions. Ideally, they don't want anyone visiting the patient. It is highly likely to be medically harmful to either the patient, the visitor, or both. An exception for immediate family might be made to say goodbye. Exceptions might also be made for people the patient has specifically designated. The spousal privilege is simply a pre-existing standardized clearance that you don't need to make special arrangements for.

So, AGAIN, your friends can visit you in the hospital, except under highly specific circumstances which have their own highly specific reasons relevant to the circumstance. If this situation ever comes up for you, you can straight up ask the nurse or administrator why the visit is restricted and they will tell you. There are many, many studies that show having loved ones around has proven benefits to patient care, and hospitals typically want this to happen, but it also provides potential medical and logistical issues that can vary wildly and be case-dependent. Maternity wards, if you want another example, are famously restrictive about visitors due to legal and security concerns, and they take these things very seriously. As in, if you haven't been to one in the last 15 years or so, you would very likely be amazed. And also, spousal privilege here isn't even absolute, the patient can specifically block the spouse (or anyone else they don't want) and specifically allow others.

Basically, what you are taking issue with already exists. This is like complaining that you can't report a person missing to the police without waiting 24 hours. Its a TV/media myth invented for dramatization that doesn't reflect reality.

Actually putting it like that, Rater's idea that no benefit should be exclusive to marriage isn't a bad idea.

It is. Again, quick and dirty example, immunity to being compelled to testify. If you want to argue that that should be extended to include direct children/parent, i wouldn't object at all. Extend that to any given person? Why in the hell would that be a good idea?

[LaZodiac]

.... Imean, because of medical and logistical reasons. For example, for a medical reason, let's say a patient has isolated precautions. Ideally, they don't want anyone visiting the patient. It is highly likely to be medically harmful to either the patient, the visitor, or both. An exception for immediate family might be made to say goodbye. Exceptions might also be made for people the patient has specifically designated. The spousal privilege is simply a pre-existing standardized clearance that you don't need to make special arrangements for.

So, AGAIN, your friends can visit you in the hospital, except under highly specific circumstances which have their own highly specific reasons relevant to the circumstance. If this situation ever comes up for you, you can straight up ask the nurse or administrator why the visit is restricted and they will tell you. There are many, many studies that show having loved ones around has proven benefits to patient care, and hospitals typically want this to happen, but it also provides potential medical and logistical issues that can vary wildly and be case-dependent. Maternity wards, if you want another example, are famously restrictive about visitors due to legal and security concerns, and they take these things very seriously. As in, if you haven't been to one in the last 15 years or so, you would very likely be amazed. And also, spousal privilege here isn't even absolute, the patient can specifically block the spouse (or anyone else they don't want) and specifically allow others.

Neat didn't know that.

I hope you enjoyed the seagull experience I shared.

[Anonymouswizard]

It is. Again, quick and dirty example, immunity to being compelled to testify. If you want to argue that that should be extended to include direct children/parent, i wouldn't object at all. Extend that to any given person? Why in the hell would that be a good idea?

So this benefit should be exclusive to marriage, but you're fine with it not being exclusive to marriage?

Combining this with your 'poly marriage would never work' stance I'm starting to wonder if it's just because you prefer the status quo to the messiness of figuring out a decent way to update the system. You have essentially said several times 'this must be locked behind marriage because it's currently locked behind marriage'.

Yes, there should probably be strict requirements for some of the benefits, but those requirements do not have to be marriage. You're seeing Situation A and assuming it means support for Situation Z.

I suspect Rater's position cones from his expressed relative disinterest in sex and relationships, but I don't want to put words in his mouth so please Rater correct me if I'm wrong

[Peelee]

So this benefit should be exclusive to marriage, but you're fine with it not being exclusive to marriage?

It's exclusive to marriage for several reasons, one of which (but not even the biggest or most important) is that it is virtually always in the financial interest of a spouse to to perjure themselves to protect the other. This is also the case for minor children against their parents (as well as them being an avenue incredibly open to manipulation by the parent). Testimony from parents and children are already highly suspect and significantly more prone to "let the jury decide if they believe it". I am not even advocating for it to change, I'm just not against it not being compelled.

Also, "compelled" is the key word here, because spouses can still testify. The privilege is typically held by the testifying spouse. The state simply can't force them to, like they can for non-spouses.

Combining this with your 'poly marriage would never work' stance

Fairly certain I specifically said I'm not at all opposed to poly marriage being codified into law, I'm just not smart enough to figure out how the logistics would work. And frankly, I'm actually fairly... let's use the word "unhappy" that you didn't want to put words in others mouths but felt no compunctions about putting words into my mouth, to me.

[Rater202]

I suspect Rater's position cones from his expressed relative disinterest in sex and relationships, but I don't want to put words in his mouth so please Rater correct me if I'm wrong

I will not deny that my aromantic and probably asexual perspective may be an influence, but I don't believe it is.

[LaZodiac]

I hope everyone enjoyed the seagull encounter I posted above.

Has anyone else had weird encounters with animals like that? It's not super uncommon up here since animals are all over the place- there's also a lady who has perfectly tamed a raven so that it always sits on her rearview mirror as she drives, and that **** feels really notable.

[Rater202]

I hope everyone enjoyed the seagull encounter I posted above.

Has anyone else had weird encounters with animals like that? It's not super uncommon up here since animals are all over the place- there's also a lady who has perfectly tamed a raven so that it always sits on her rearview mirror as she drives, and that **** feels really notable.

Living right across the street from a nature preserve, we occasionally get deer in our or the neighbor's yard.

[Peelee]

Living right across the street from a nature preserve, we occasionally get deer in our or the neighbor's yard.

I'm envious - i wish all of our deer stayed in or very close to nature preserves.

[LaZodiac]

Living right across the street from a nature preserve, we occasionally get deer in our or the neighbor's yard.

Oh that sounds cool actually!

I'm envious - i wish all of our deer stayed in or very close to nature preserves.

Deers do not understand traffic laws and if they did I think they wouldn't abide by them anyway, they seem like pretty lawless creatures. Unfortunate though.

[Peelee]

Oh that sounds cool actually!



Deers do not understand traffic laws and if they did I think they wouldn't abide by them anyway, they seem like pretty lawless creatures. Unfortunate though.

True. Plus, there's always the bright side - deer aren't moose.

[Rater202]

Oh that sounds cool actually!

Several years ago in the early morning as I waited for my shere ride to college, I saw a family of deer maybe five strong gallop out of the trees, across the street, hop my neighbor's fence, and bolt across the field toward the line of old growth trees in the distance just after sunrise.

Majestic as ****, I tell ya hwat.

Deers do not understand traffic laws and if they did I think they wouldn't abide by them anyway, they seem like pretty lawless creatures. Unfortunate though.

I recall an incident where a womaan in 2012 called a radio talk show to bitch about how she'd been in three separate car accidents involving deer on a busy road with a deer x-sing sign near buy to bitch about why the deer were encouraged to cross on said busy road.

[Peelee]

Apropos of absolutely nothing, but my friend got shushed at the Library of Congress yesterday.

I have taken great delight in telling our entire friend group.

[Form]

Apropos of absolutely nothing, but my friend got shushed at the Library of Congress yesterday.

I have taken great delight in telling our entire friend group.

Yes, for he has defiled the sanctity of the Library. Let his shame be spread far and wide.

[Rynjin]

It is. Again, quick and dirty example, immunity to being compelled to testify. If you want to argue that that should be extended to include direct children/parent, i wouldn't object at all. Extend that to any given person? Why in the hell would that be a good idea?

Counterpoint, why is giving ANYONE an immunity against being compelled to testify a good idea? Either everybody has a right to privacy or no one does.

From a quick search, it seems the only reason given is "it might make the spouse mad and they could become a hostile witness!" which applies to EVERYBODY.