DOMA and Prop 8. Both History.

[LemmingofGlory]

If you go back and read my original post, I didn't say nationwide gay marriage would inevitably create backlash, but that it was a possibility, and one that I think is strong due to the backwards and reactionary political culture of the U.S. relative to other nations.

Yeah, I inferred that if you were mentioning it that you must have thought it probable, which is why I criticized it. My point that you are lacking in a broader perspective to understand this issue is still salient, regardless of your rambling about how "Capitalism IS the forest." The likelihood of a backlash is not understood only from the perspective of examining "the Capitalism." I do not see why you would even begin to think that it would be. Personally, I think whiplash is more likely than backlash.

Since you seem to praise intelligence and learning so much, the following may help you. There are some very important things a wise student learns which are indirect consequences of course work, and these should be known to anyone who attended university.

(1) No discipline exists in a bubble.
Every academic discipline benefits from intellectual cross-pollination with other disciplines. Where this relates to this conversation is that we're discussing a social issue. Social phenomena are interesting because this idea actually scales down further. The understanding an observer has from a distance is very different from the understanding the observer has after interacting with those being observed. You should routinely expect your perspective on social issues to be refined the more you interact with the groups involved, which is not a refinement due to understanding how terrible capitalism is. You can be certain that capitalism is a tree in this forest of knowledge, because social scientists need not assume the hypothesis "A society is based upon capitalism."

(2) Know the limits of an idea: Every explanation we've ever found only goes so far.
To date, we've not found any grand theories that completely explain an entire academic discipline. Moreover, some ideas work very well at one scale and not so well at others. Newtonian physics works great at some scales, but at others it breaks down and we need Relativity. "The Capitalism" also most likely has a problem with scale, which is also why you often come across sounding like a crackpot or conspiracy theorist. Well, that and the fact that you take every opportunity to derail threads into discussions of capitalism and have a general difficulty understanding metaphors in your very literal interpretation of things said to you.

(3) Not everything is intuitive.
If it was, we wouldn't have academic disciplines anymore. We'd just be right all the time, and it'd be amazing. This is probably my favorite list item because Republican politicians, on social issues, are incredibly fond of appealing to the intellect of their constituents by invoking "It's just common sense" when the issue under discussion is so gravely misunderstood it's unclear whether the misunderstanding is deliberate or if the speaker is really that dim. This item, at the moment, I'm not relating to anything you've said; it just belongs on this list.

So while such a prediction isn't inevitable, it is possible, and given the circumstances one could make the argument that it is even probable. I don't think any person, unless they have some sort of crystal ball that we are deprived of, is going to say such an outcome is inevitable. That would be overly deterministic. Systems of analysis (Marxist or non) aren't used to predict outcomes, but to show which outcomes are possible or not possible. Which of the possibilities will result is anyone's guess, it all depends on a variety of material factors and how they play out.

Do you just assume your audience is stupid? This whole paragraph is an explanation to a reader who does not know the difference between "certain" / "probable" / "possible" / "impossible". Assuming an audience is stupid is the mistake made by Stephen Wolfram, and it's why he has to play in the sandbox by himself. (It's the uncovered sandbox that the cats poop in.)

My friend, I'm not at any disadvantage in accessing the material conditions of society - quite the opposite actually. People like Hammer though, who are dumber than shit to begin with, are at a multitude of disadvantages when speaking on any intellectual based topic.

The court may think the fool a simpleton when his wit outstrips their own.

I know all this already. The point I was making to Kandrathe was that lists, awards, and other such things that measure how good or popular something is in our culture should be taken lightly, and that he shouldn't necessarily be using such things to try and drive his points home. I was using Beebs as an analogy to point out that Rand topping some novels reader list is meaningless. Marx's "Capital Vol.1" skyrocketed in sales after capitalism dropped over dead for the millionth time in 2008 and had to be resuscitated by the state, but it doesn't mean anything. That's all.

See, I was ribbing you by talking in buzzwords and jargon.

Also, kandrathe is entirely correct when he says we all love Canadians. It's just something everyone knows, but they might not be aware of it. The thing is, you cannot actually choose to hate Canadians. It's not a choice. It's just how everyone is born. Even if you say you do it's just not true, like when ex-gays say they're not gay anymore.

-Lem