From the Boing Boing Flickr pool: "Equality," a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivative-Works (2.0) image from Rich Renomeron's photostream.


  1. I heard that the anti-equality folks didn’t have any meaningful visibility outside the courthouse this week, but a few of them got together to hold up picket signs near the Smithsonian museum of natural history. You know, with the rest of the fossils.

      1. We don’t need understanding. We need equality under the law. If you want to sing Kumbaya with a bunch of hatemongers, do it on your own time.

        1. Excuse me, I’m FOR equality, NOT against it, and have no idea why you’d make the opposite assumption based on what I said. This is pretty disappointing coming from a moderator.

          1. If you are FOR equality get out of the hate camp. Tolerance is all well and good, but tolerating intolerance is NOT. When the “proponents from the opposition” hold the position that some people are not due civil rights they don’t get my “understanding” either. I’m not interested in “understanding” their position. They can keep their bigotry for all eternity for all I care, but they will no longer be allowed to codify their bigotry into law. We are WAY WAY past understanding.

      2. How about people who want to make interracial marraige illegal again? Am I allowed to make fun of them?

        1. As somebody that’s in an interracial marriage and having dealt with people like that on more than a few occasions, I’d say it rather depends on what you want to achieve. Different people have these mindsets for different reasons, and some respond better than others to civil discourse. None respond well to being insulted for their beliefs/opinions though.

          1. So if you saw a group of people holding picket signs using nasty epithets to describe you and your wife while simultaneously lobbying to make your union illegal, would you feel especially compelled to refer to those protesters only in friendly and respectful terms? I must admit that I would not.

          2. “Civil discourse” didn’t make your marriage legal, and it’s not going to make MINE legal. Do you have any idea what the civil rights movement was actually like? Because I am old enough to remember it, and it wasn’t “civil discourse” that got you that right.

      3. The goal isn’t to polarize. The goal is to create a new social norm. If someone tells you that they think that people of different races shouldn’t be allowed to marry, most people react in horror. You have to be a pretty vitriol swastika wearing bigot to speak up against interracial marriage. It wasn’t this way 50 years ago.

        What changed (in addition to a bunch of laws) is that it became socially unacceptable to voice such opinions. You might be a racist bigot, but there are not many places where you can tell people how interracial marriage should be illegal and not expect hostility.

        You probably can’t solve bigotry completely, and it takes a long time to work out structural damage that bigotry brings, but the first couple of steps involve fix overt bigotry in laws and making overt bigotry socially unacceptable.

        Making the homophobic douches that want to see the government deny people the right to marry because their sky god said it is naughty feel embarrassed to openly shout their asinine opinions is fantastic. The fact that nearly have of the nation is against gay marriage and yet the pro-gay marriage crowd vastly outnumbers the open bigots outside of the court house means that we are already half way there. It means people are embarrassed to express their bigoted opinion publicly. When shithead bigoted opinion are so embarrassing that only YouTube trolls are willing to express it, it means the tide has already turned.

        And before anyone bitches and moans about freedom of speech, let me point out that freedom of speech includes freedom to call someone else a homophobic douche bag and make them feel bad about it. You have the freedom to express your shit head opinion, and people have the freedom to express their thoughts on your shit head opinion in return.

        1. Indeed. The whole false equivalence thing is bullshit. Yes, people have a right to be hateful bigots, but that doesn’t mean we should engage with them beyond ‘you people are hateful bigots, get to fuck with that bollocks’.

        2. Oh YEAH! People misunderstand “Freedom of Speech.” Having the freedom to say something doesn’t free you of the consequences of that speech. When people express shameful opinions, shaming them is absolutely appropriate.

    1.  My assumption is that the flag was actually backwards in the photo and so it was flipped to make it legible.

        1. Depth of field? The street sign is fairly distant and the depth of field is pretty tight. Even nearby people are fairly out-of-focus. It’s a REALLY good photo. The focus on the flag, the subject of the photo, is really crisp and the crisp and draws your attention to it.

Comments are closed.