Culture

Progress Without Government: Boy Scouts to Fully End Ban on Gay Participation (Updated)

Not all cultural gains require the Supreme Court or Congress.

|

MORALLY straight.
Rockwell

If all goes as planned, today will mark the end of the Boy Scouts of America's history of discrimination against gay participation. The Scouts already voted to allow, starting in 2014, openly gay boys to be members, but they were booted once they reached adulthood. Openly gay adults could not serve as scout leaders.

Today, the Scouts' national board will vote on a resolution to end this ban on gay adults. This resolution passed unanimously out of the Scouts' executive committee and seems likely to pass. From Reuters:

In May, the Boy Scouts' president, former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, called the ban "unsustainable" and said it needed to change.

The Irving, Texas-based organization lifted its ban on gay youth in 2013, but had continued to prohibit the participation of openly gay adults.

The selection of Gates as president of the organization last year was seen as an opportunity to revisit the policy since he helped end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that barred openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military.

To be clear, the resolution would end the national prohibition on gay leaders, but it would still be up to local troops to decide whether they'll let specific gay adults participate.

Regardless, this is just another piece in our significant cultural shift toward gay inclusion. The Reuters story mentions both the military's gay policies and the recent Supreme Court decision mandating same-sex marriage recognition across the country. But this change is significantly different: It comes at the hands of the organization itself and the culture that supports it, not via government order.

It did, however, come party as a result of significant cultural pressure. They had been losing donations as a result of their policy of excluding gay participants. Gates has even said in a previous speech that he feared failing to adapt to America's changing attitudes on homosexuality could spell the end of the Scouts as a national movement.

Regardless of whether a person supports the Scouts' decision, this is the absolute right way for social change to happen. In 2013 I critiqued those who were upset that change in the Scouts was taking too long. This complaint is in itself an interesting indication of the speed of culture shift on gay issues, because it took all of two years.

But in addition, I noted that expecting large institutions to just suddenly change gears quickly is not realistic and will result in backlashes or reversals. That this shift has been happening in phases is to the benefit of giving people time to come on board with the changes. I wrote back then:

The leadership of the institution, as separated as it is from a significant chunk of its membership, needs to determine that the institution is prepared for the cultural change. Blame it on our nation's current apparent worship of executive power, but it's a myth to believe that "leadership" involves the ability to simply change an institution's culture with a snap of the fingers. It doesn't work that way. In fact, that attitude is the hallmark of a bad leader, the bureaucratic middle manager who thinks he can control his company culture through the formalization of a host of written policies.

As all the research and interviews and planning dragged on while the military managed the dismantling of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the information that came out became more and more clear that, by and large, its culture was going to handle the change just fine. Confidence in the transition increased. Resistance practically melted away among military leaders. The change has been a complete success.

I suspect the same will hold true for the Scouts.

UPDATE: The executive board voted to ratify the resolution, formally ending the ban.

NEXT: New York Times Editors Defend Nail-Salon Narrative of Wholesale Injustice, Admit Mistakes In Clinton Story

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Not all cultural gains require the Supreme Court or Congress.

    Still, at some point Congress will pass a resolution about this. ‘National Gay Scouting Day”, if nothing else.

    1. This may be nitpicking, but the premise of Shackford’s statement is false. No cultural gains require (or even involve) SCOTUS or congress.

      Bringing cultural cases to the SC, at best, only brings them to the public’s attention. The SC does not dictate american culture, although it presumes to.

      Cultural and societal change are inherently defined by the collection of individual interactions in society. Some of those interactions can be barred or influenced by government, but that does not equate to true societal change.

      1. Bringing cultural cases to the SC, at best, only brings them to the public’s attention. The SC does not dictate american culture, although it presumes to.

        Yes and no. It’s not as if every SCOTUS ruling was met with cheers and applause by the entire country. Bringing the entire federal apparatus to bear on people whose opinions wind up on the wrong side of a SCOTUS case isn’t exactly trivial. The Spanish Inquisition made believers out of a lot of folks too, but it wasn’t a purely cultural change.

        1. Right. Change by coercion is not “real” change IMHO.

          1. But for some people, change by coercion is the only real change.

      2. The government is usually, if not always, a Johnny-com-lately behind social change. By the time the government gets around to decreeing something by law, society has already accepted the new norm. The history of child labor laws is a great example of this.

        If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Theoretically, the government responds to demands by the populace, or at least panders to them. Thus, we should not need the government to ever butt in in the first place, and, instead, let social pressure take care of things. For example, with gay discrimination, boycotts and social ostracism seem to work pretty well once the critical mass of public opinion is reached. And the government will got off its ass and do anything until this critical mass of public opinion is reached. This seems to me to be a great consequentialist argument against the government ever getting involved in any social issues.

        1. One exception to this IMO is Loving v. Virginia and interracial marriage. Something like only 20% of the population approved of interracial relationships at the time of that decision (granted, the polls didn’t specifically ask about whether or not it should be legal, and it was legal in many states, but it certainly wasn’t something society had overall come to accept and demand change on).

          1. It depended on the kind of interracial relationships. The legislators crafting the Virginia anti-miscegenation law had to go through contortions to put in a “Pocahontas exception,” because of all the local big-shot Virginians who claimed Indian ancestry as a point of pride. Otherwise those big shots would be classified as “colored.”

    2. Resolutions are meaningless. Try not to live down to the stereotype of the overly-sensitive, perpetually butt-hurt socon.

      Also, the BSA already has a *&^%$#@! congressional charter:

      The BSA holds a Congressional charter under Title 36 of the United States Code,[18] which means that it is one of the comparatively rare “Title 36” corporations in the United States.[19] The 1916 statute of incorporation established this institution amongst a small number of other patriotic and national organizations which are similarly chartered,[20] such as the Girl Scouts of the USA, the American Legion, the Red Cross, Little League Baseball, and the National Academy of Sciences. The federal incorporation was originally construed primarily as an honor, however it does grant the chartered organization some special privileges and rights, including freedom from antitrust and monopoly regulation, and complete control over the organization’s symbols and insignia. [Wikipedia article: Boy Scouts of America]

      1. Try not to live down to the stereotype of the overly-sensitive, perpetually butt-hurt socon.

        Come on, Tonio, that’s like, way hard!

        1. Thanks, Nikki. You’re the best!

      2. the overly-sensitive, perpetually butt-hurt

        Why the use of the offensive phrasing?

        Given its obvious homophobic origins, even its ironic use serves what purpose?

  2. After I heard this, all I kept thinking was, “The ‘Big, Gay Al’ South Park episode is now an anachronism! Will future generations ‘get it’?”

    Srsly. That’s what first came to mind, and then stayed for awhile.

    “Super! Thanks for asking!”

    1. Me too.

      “Out? Of thcouts?”

    2. That episode will always stay relevant. Nazis, Republicans, and Christians continue to be the enemies.

      1. Classic South Park. I love big Gay Al. (no homo)

  3. I await some random crazy attracted by Reason’s facebook posts (as opposed to the random crazies who live here) to start going on about pederasts.

    1. Reason has Facebook posts? Good god, it’s a wonder we aren’t overloaded with crazy stupid already.

      1. HAVE YOU SEEN THIS??!!! *attaches link to some cray shit*

        This is happening and NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT IT! LOCK UP THE CHIRRENS!

        *runs away to lock up kids*

      2. I’m pretty sure every time some random person shows up and flips out on a gay marriage or marijuana legalization thread they’re from Reason’s facebook page. Reason’s followers on Facebook tend to lean more traditionally Republican/more socially conservative.

        1. I didn’t even know Reason had a facebook page. In other news Get off my lawn!

        2. And those are just the ones who actually bother to come to Reason to set up an account to bitch here instead of Facebook. I felt my IQ slipping back when I would read the Facebook threads on Reason articles. It’s almost approaching Youtube levels of unfiltered derp.

        3. Reason’s facebook page

          WHY?????

          1. LOOK UPON IT AND DESPAIR.

            Also, apparently they haven’t posted this article there yet, so this thread is just regular Reason crazy.

            1. Ugh. I would normally thank you for enlightening me, but it’s really something I didn’t need to see,

      3. It’s always a little bracing to watch some of their videos on Youtube and look at the comments there. There are a whole lot more “Reason embraces the Mexican invasion!” commenters out there than in here.

      1. *snicker*

      2. Shut the fuck up Donny

        1. Eight year olds, Dude.

    2. Why, what does L. Ron Hubbard have to do with the Boy Scouts?

      -jcr

  4. Not all cultural gains require the Supreme Court or Congress.

    Yes. People can always be bullied into voluntarily conforming before going to the courts and using the power of the gun to coerce them.

    The Boy Scouts are a private organization, why do they have to change? Why didn’t someone start their own scouting organization that allowed gays?

    The people who objected to this, left the scouts and formed their own organization that doesn’t allow gays.

    http://www.relevantmagazine.co…..-gay-youth

    I guess Scott and the rest of Reason can start a campaign to go after these people now, because everyone must conform. No one can ever be left alone.

    1. The Boy Scouts are a private organization, why do they have to change?

      Uh…because they decided too? So now, when an organization chooses to change of its own volition, your complaint is…what? Please, John, inform us of the persecution complex for today, which is apparently that when organizations make decisions with no one forcing them to, it’s…uh…what was your point again?

      1. Of course they can. And we will see how that works out for them. But you know as well as i do, this won’t be the end of it. They will go after the dissident organization and do their best to make sure life is as hard as possible for it too. Where does it end?

        It never does. Why does anyone care that the scouts don’t allow gays? Why isn’t the solution for people to say “well I am not joning them” instead of “they must change to conform”?

        1. Ah, so the persecution complex for today is the same one as every day. Well, I can’t say I’m surprised.

          1. I never even joined the scouts you half wit. I don’t care if they go all gay. I wish them luck with it. I knew you get a perverse sense of entertainment watching society become more and more conformist. In fairness, you don’t personally want to make people conform. But you seem to very much enjoy watching it happen to other people.

            Your act is essentially always the same thing; watch people you don’t like get totally fucked over by other people you don’t like and then laugh about it and call the people getting fucked over “complainers” for having the nerve to not like getting fucked over for your entertainment.

            1. Watching you argue with the ghosts in your imagination instead of the people who are actually talking to you is funny, John, but it’s also getting really old. The best part is how you apparently know more about the thought processes of the people you yell at over the internet than they do themselves.

              Or you’re just off your nut. I’ll let everyone decide which for themselves.

              1. No I just understand you. You don’t care a whit about the Boy Scouts. But you do enjoy watching them get screwed over by some other people you don’t like. It is your move.

                I hate conformist fucks who think everything must change to suite them. And unlike you, I don’t find their act entertaining.

                1. You’re not even speaking to me any more. You’re literally ranting to yourself while pretending like you’re actually talking to me. Amazing stuff.

                2. How did they get screwed over? Do you take this stance on any instance of an organization making voluntary changes in reaction to cultural changes? If a country club chooses to drop their “whites-only” policy, is that a grave injustice of the PC hordes oppressing people?

                  1. Well, that’s how conservatism works, Calidissident. Anytime anyone else is less conservative than you, that person is preventing you from properly enacting your conservatism.

                    Hell is other people, after all.

                  2. If they liked their country club and were not bothering anyone, why did they have to change? Just don’t join it. Why do you give a shit that people you don’t like have a club that you wouldn’t want to join?\

                    1. “If they liked their country club and were not bothering anyone, why did they have to change? Just don’t join it. Why do you give a shit that people you don’t like have a club that you wouldn’t want to join?\”

                      Why do you give a shit that these organizations choose to change their policies? You’re the one in this thread who is by far the most concerned about the actions and policies of organizations you are not a part of, yet you’re trying to make everyone else out to be nosy busybodies.

                    2. Why do you give a shit that these organizations choose to change their policies?

                      I don’t. I only care that they are only doing it because people like you can never leave anyone alone.

                    3. “I don’t. I only care that they are only doing it because people like you can never leave anyone alone.”

                      LMAO you are so full of shit.

                    4. Hey John, did you miss the part where the Boy Scouts did this because they were losing donations? Is your argument now “why can’t people continue to give them money even though they have policies these people find offensive?”

        2. They will go after the dissident organization

          Who is “they” and what power do you claim they have?

          1. The same people who demanded the Scouts take gays. Give it a few years and let the new organization do better and the Scouts not do well and watch what happens. Everyone must conform or else.

            1. One more time – who are these people? And why are they different from any other group of people advocating for something?

              1. Scott for one. And the entire rest of the gay activist community who got corporate sponsors and legislatures to tell the Scouts to change or else.

                It is called corporatism. And no, they are not different from any of the other busy body assholes who plague our society demanding every single organization conform to their beliefs.

                1. It is called corporatism.

                  That is not what is called corporatism. That is a very different thing than what is called corporatism.

            2. Do they take atheists yet?

              1. Ours does…

          2. The Cigarette Smoking Man: Men can never be free, because they’re weak, corrupt, worthless… and restless. The people believe in authority. They’ve grown tired of waiting for miracle or mystery. Science is their religion – no greater explanation exists for them! They must never believe any differently if the project is to go forward.

            1. J: Why the big secret. People are smart.

              K: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.

              1. one of my all time favorite quotes

                1. meant for J & K

        3. Why isn’t the solution for people to say “well I am not joning them” instead of “they must change to conform”?

          That is what was happening. Fewer people joined or donated to the Scouts. The people in charge fear this will continue if they don’t change their policies.

          What is the “bullying” that you think has been going on?

          1. Not to presume to answer for John, but when the President gets involved in a controversy, it can be seen as undue pressure.

            It has been well known since the decision to allow gay scouts that the leadership ban had a short shelf-life.

        4. Why does anyone care that the scouts don’t allow gays? Why isn’t the solution for people to say “well I am not joning them” instead of “they must change to conform”?

          Well, apparently a bunch of gay men who grew up scouting were disappointed they couldn’t be leaders. They were scouts and loved scouting.

          1. Well, apparently a bunch of gay men who grew up scouting were disappointed they couldn’t be leaders. They were scouts and loved scouting.

            Why don’t they form their own organization? And why would you want to join an organization that wouldn’t have you? I am disappointed that as a drinker I can’t get magic underwear and be a Temple Mormon. Is the solution for me to demand the Mormons let drunks in or just leave the Mormons alone?

            1. As I said, John, many of them grew up in the organization. We see this happen with all sorts of organizations, and I don’t know why you always want to insist that only outsiders agitate for change. It’s just not the case. Many people grow up in organizations they love and come to see as part of their identities, but they aren’t in lock-step with the organization on every issue. Many of those people prefer to push for change rather than leave, because they identify with the organization. This is something nonjoiners like you and I can probably not understand very well, but I can see it is the case with people in all sorts of organizations all the time. You seem to be arguing that no organization should ever change at all, but I don’t think people involved in organizations would agree with that or find it reasonable.

    2. The Boy Scouts are a private organization, why do they have to change? Why didn’t someone start their own scouting organization that allowed gays?

      I’ve never understood why an organization chartered by Congress with the United States President acting as its ceremonial head and granted unique access to military bases and government facilities for its activities is called “private”.

      The boy scouts are a holdover from the era of fascism; one of the last paramilitary youth groups that were all the rage in the 20’s and 30’s.

      They should have been properly privatized 50 years ago, and we would have been saved all this sound and fury.

      1. All of that is true. And if you want to kick the Boy Scouts out of all that stuff, you won’t get any resistance from me.

      2. one of the last paramilitary youth groups

        “Your….Eagle Scouts.” /”Red Dawn”

        1. You know who else was an Eagle Scout?

          1. L Ron Hubbard?

          2. Me, and as of this past Saturday, my brother.

            1. Congratulations!

          3. Me too.

        2. Yeah. That’s right. Infiltrators came up illegal from Mexico. Cubans mostly. They managed to infiltrate SAC bases in the Midwest, several down in Texas and wreaked a helluva lot of havoc, I’m here to tell you. They opened up the door down here, and the whole Cuban & Nicaraguan armies come walking right through, rolled right up here through the Great Plains.

          Think of the terror that preceded the advance of the….. Nicaraguans.

      3. The boy scouts are a holdover from the era of fascism; one of the last paramilitary youth groups that were all the rage in the 20’s and 30’s.

        This. I saw that as a kid – holy hell I am glad my mom didn’t try to force that crap on me.

        1. I never was a joiner either. I never got the Scouts. It looked like it took all of the fun out of what should have been fun stuff.

          1. I went to some summer “day camps” which had all the fun stuff minus the religious and patriotic nonsense.

            1. Meh, I was an Eagle Scout and actually think it offered an amazing amount of opportunities to do stuff that I wouldn’t have otherwise experienced. Yes, there’s a significant dose of patriotism and, if you’re already partial to it, deference to authority. Personally, it gave me small and medium sized group leadership and management opportunities that actually led to some of my first knocking of heads with adults based upon reason rather than base teenage emotionalism.

              My troop wasn’t affiliated with any church though so maybe that made a difference. I had Mormon friends in Scouting and it almost seemed to be an arm of their temple.

              Seven years after I got my Eagle I navigated a group of my friends out of the Shenandoah National Forest at dusk after we’d been shrooming all day simply because I learned what the trailblaze system was in Scouting. SO IT CAN’T BE ALL BAD.

              1. I had Mormon friends in Scouting and it almost seemed to be an arm of their temple.

                As I’ve noted before, the influence of the LDS upon American Scouting cannot be overstated. Mormon churches make up the largest chartering organization of troops and packs with almost 40,000. The second largest is the Methodist Church with 10,000. So much of BSA national policy is based on their Mormon stakeholders, and I’m really, really surprised that the BSA went the way they did.

                1. Some of those same friends that I mentioned are now parents and involved as adult pack and troop leaders. They are fucking incensed about this. I’m fully on board with the change in philosophy (I don’t care what you fuck so long as it’s a consenting adult human), but I think these more religious folks will likely leave to join one of the new orgs (the local policy rule might be an attempt to stave this off). And if one of those orgs gets big enough, I agree with John that their doors will get beaten down with calls to end discrimination.

                  1. And if one of those orgs gets big enough, I agree with John that their doors will get beaten down with calls to end discrimination.

                    I’m curious whether this plays out with the Girl Scouts. There are currently a bazillion alternatives to Girl Scouts, including American Heritage, Frontier, Awana, and a few more. In my research, I ran across a condescending Jezebel article about American Heritage Girls, but that was really it.

          2. It looked like it took all of the fun out of what should have been fun stuff.

            It did. I was only in boy scouts for a year and a half, but it took me 5 years to re-learn my love for hiking, fishing, and camping. I hated the over-regimented, scheduled-to-the-minute, pseudo-military crap, with a heaping helping of older scouts being abusive and downright inappropriate. I loved being out in the woods, having fun doing outdoors stuff, but I hated 99% of the kids in my troop.

      4. Yeah…Robert Baden Powell was pretty into fascism. Hell, this was a guy who complained about Hitler not doing fascism right.

        1. Later on probably. In the early days, Baden-Powell created the Scouts as a kind of training ground/echo chamber for British Imperialism.

          1. Of course, and scouting was still restricted/banned in Germany in the 1930s. Powell largely became very pro-fascist in response to communism.

            Also, he might have been gay.

            1. Interestingly, I just read something on this recently. New scholarship makes a pretty good case that the Scouts became more internationalist in the 1920s, sympathetic to the League of Nations and other such groups.

              1. That may have been part of his whole ‘Hitler doing fascism wrong’ bit.

                1. While B-P, like pretty much every other upper-class Brit in those days, had a brief flirtation with fascism, I would argue his distaste for communism stemmed more from his deep Anglican faith. Let’s not forget he was the son of a well-known minister and mathematics professor.

                  As RN pointed out, the Scouts really were a vehicle for a primarily cultural imperialism. B-P admired many of the Africans and Indians “colonials” he met, he just wished they would join him on Sundays for Mass and then stop by for a bit of pleasant conversation about cricket while enjoying scones and tea.

      5. “one of the last paramilitary youth groups”

        Evidence? Other than Chomsky quotes?

        1. The founder of the Scouts was very pro-fascist and the entire organization’s historical mission goals is the promotion of obedience to authority, acceptance of one’s ‘place’ within a hierarchy, and uncritical patriotic/nationalistic belief?

          1. is the promotion of obedience to authority,

            Not in my personal experience as a youth or as an adult leader. My experience was about a combination of self-reliance and teamwork.

            acceptance of one’s ‘place’ within a hierarchy,

            True for every corporate team-building training class I have ever attended. The Scouts — not so much.

            and uncritical patriotic/nationalistic belief?

            So pledging to do you duty to god and country was a bit rough back during Vietnam war. Wearing a scout uniform was an invitation to a shitload of verbal abuse.

            The organization has problems. Every big organization does. On the whole though, I am very fond of the Scouts.

            1. I am, of course, referring to the general historical mission goals. Your mileage may vary, because of course there’s a difference between 1920s scouts and more modern scouts on different continents. Unless you’re like Sevo levels old.

              1. Then what fucking relevance does Baden Powell have on the topic at hand?

                1. Its origins in being a paramilitary youth group might have some relevance as to whether it’s a paramilitary youth group?

                  1. because of course there’s a difference between 1920s scouts and more modern scouts on different continents.

                    And you answered this yourself.

                2. BECAUSE IT TELLS US THAT THE SCOUTS ORIGINATED AS YET ANOTHER PATRIOTIC PARAMILITARY YOUTH GROUP!!!!!!

                  Diis manibus!

                  Most of the problems relating to the scouts arises out of its special relationship with the nation state. Cut it loose, make it a genuine private organization, and you remove the problem! Then it can do whatever the hell its officers want, and other people can create competing groups if they don’t like it and everyone is happy.

                  Just because they weren’t agitating you to beat up enemies of the state, they gave you happy memories, and they taught you skills and habits that have served you well as an adult doesn’t mean that they weren’t a fascist paramilitary youth group. Unless their card is being skillfully in a game of Illuminatus!, the scouts are not the enemies of civilization. That doesn’t mean they should have that special charter.

    3. Or maybe the BSa just wants to stay relevant and appeal to most people and not just a subset of social conservatives who think that exposure to gay guys will corrupt our youth. Not all social pressure is bullying. Lots of the pressure to change came from within the organization.

      If the Boy Scouts want to position themselves as they do as a wholesome and honorable American institution, they do need to follow social trends like this to some extent. While gay marriage and things like that are still divisive issues, the notion that gay people are some kind of pathological deviants who ought to be excluded from ordinary activities is one that is rapidly fading. If the Scouts don’t change to reflect that reality, they will become irrelevant to most people. They want to continue to be an organization that appeals to parents of all classes and political persuasions and I think this change is necessary if they want to be that in the future.

      1. This makes too much sense. Try harder to engage in KULTURKAMPF!

    4. The Boy Scouts are a private organization, why do they have to change? Why didn’t someone start their own scouting organization that allowed gays?

      I guess Scott and the rest of Reason can start a campaign to go after these people now, because everyone must conform. No one can ever be left alone.

      I’m a little torn on this. In general, (even as a former boy scout) I couldn’t care less who they let in or don’t let in. My boy scout experience was a little too homoerotic in the first place, so officially acknowledging that there were gay hormone-driven boys in the boy scouts seemed a bit of an understatement. Also, as a quazi-private/public organization, they’re more exposed to the political winds of the FedGov. Even beyond that, it’s their organization, and they can choose to allow gays if they want.

      OTOH, I do also see what you see, John. It is troubling that activist groups and politicians can step in and wield so much power, despite not being involved in the organization. The “shame ’em mercilessly in public” tactics seem rather contrary to the NAP. This decision was years in the making, and the BSA was pushed into it by political pressure from government representatives. That’s rather concerning to me, not because of this specific outcome, but because it’s one more in a long line of organizations who have caved because some politician or activist group decided to make them into the evil group of the day.

      1. It should concern you. But you are one of those people who thinks things like that matter for reasons other than to provide bread and circuses for Episiarch.

        1. Entertain me, peasants! That’s what I’m thinking, right, John? Please tell me again what I think, because you’re better at it than I am myself. In fact, can you tell me what I want for lunch, seeing as how you know my own thoughts better than me?

          1. That is exactly what you think. You never have an opinion on any of these things other than how funny both sides are. That is it.

            1. So if I have no opinion, how is it you know what I think? Please keep telling me that you know what’s in my head better than I do, John. Nothing is more hilarious than your actively contending that you are, in fact, a no-shit mind reader.

              Can we call you the Psionic Hysteric as your superhero name?

              1. You have only yourself to blame, Epi, for not raising a Mind Blank in advance.

                Take some personal responsibility.

                Sheesh.

              2. I know what you think because I read what you post and it is always the same thing.

                1. Your projection is showing, John.

                  1. Really? Episiarch? That is the best you got? The H&R equivalent of “I know what you are but what am I”? It makes me sad you have gotten this pathetic. You used to be funny and interesting.

                    1. “What happened to you, John? I used to think you were cool.”

                    2. I was never cool Episiarch.

      2. “My chin may be scratchy, Canteen Boy, but it gives good backrubs.”

    5. Stemberger says that the vision of his new organization isn’t to be “churchy” or to be an “anti-BSA organization,” but rather, “This is going to be a masculine outdoor program to raise young men.”

      that sounds super gay.

    6. The Boy Scouts are a private organization, why do they have to change?

      They didn’t have to change, they chose to change. Why? Because, under their “gay prohibition” policy, their income (in terms of donations) had dropped significantly. As a result, they changed their policy to decentralize the issue, and will now allow individual troops to decide. Thus, those who wish to be involved in Boy Scouts but have a strong bias toward one position or the other will still be able to participate in a Scout troop which matches their bias.

      The market has spoken, free choice is permitted within the organization, and everyone wins except the extremists that want to force a universal position on all Scouts.

  5. Much of the progress has happened, not just without government, but despite government. For example, the Virginia General Assembly forbade businesses to offer domestic-partner benefits until businesses lobbied to repeal the law.

    1. That is usually how it works.

  6. As all the research and interviews and planning dragged on while the military managed the dismantling of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the information that came out became more and more clear that, by and large, its culture was going to handle the change just fine. Confidence in the transition increased. Resistance practically melted away among military leaders. The change has been a complete success.

    Yeah when you make it clear that anyone who objects will have their career ended, it is amazing how “resistance melts away”. That is how social change should happen; a few people at the top make the rules and put their boots on the faces of anyone who objects. Right Scott?

    And the Scouts are not the military. People will just choose not to join the Scouts. They will just leave and go join the new organization only to start the process of harassment and intimidation all over again.

    1. I would guess that this change would lead to more people joining who wouldn’t have than people choosing not to join who would have. Not that I really give a shit what happens to the Boy Scouts.

      1. I would guess that this change would lead to more people joining who wouldn’t have than people choosing not to join who would have

        No. The type of person who thinks the Scouts should have gays is the type of person who generally would want nothing to do with the God and country stuff that is the rest of the Scouts. And the type of person who buys into the God and country stuff likely doesn’t want gay scout leaders.

        And remember, the members never voted on this. This was decided unilaterally by the top men who run it. Top down enforced social change, change as it should be done.

        1. Except each local troop will make its own decisions.

          1. What do you mean? If the local troops can still not allow gays, then how are the Boy Scouts allowing gays?

            1. The official policy is that the blanket ban on allowing gays is lifted, but that those troops (especially those with religious charters) who still want to uphold a local ban are able to do so.

              1. How long will that last?

            2. Well, it used to be that if local troops said they allowed gays, they’d get in trouble with the national leadership. From Scott’s post:

              To be clear, the resolution would end the national prohibition on gay leaders, but it would still be up to local troops to decide whether they’ll let specific gay adults participate.

              So…yeah.

            3. It’s in the article, John. Apparently, the national organization will no longer have a standing ban on gay leaders. Individual troops are allowed to make their own decisions, yea or nay.

              1. Then I really don’t see how this is a story. Seriously, it always should have been up to the local people. It is their group.

                1. Okay…but it wasn’t, and now it will be, so that’s a story.

            4. John, are you being deliberately obtuse? The national organization used to ban all gay scouts and leaders. Now they don’t. Which means they allow gays, even if local groups are still allowed to have different rules.

        2. “And remember, the members never voted on this. This was decided unilaterally by the top men who run it. Top down enforced social change, change as it should be done.”

          This is how the vast majority of decisions in any organization are made. You only seem to have a problem with it when it benefits THE GAYZ or some other group you take issue with.

        3. I think you are wrong. A lot of people beyond the kind of lefty elitists you are thinking of are opposed to discrimination against gay people at this point. You seem to have this really strange notion in your head that people are divided into neat groups who all believe the same things, and that’s really not how things are. Not everyone who wants gays not to be excluded from common activities and institutions is a flaming leftist progressive who hates America.

          And the ban on gays was also a top down, forced rule that the members didn’t get to vote on. Do members of the Boy Scouts get to vote on any of the rules and policies of the national organization? As far as I know, they do not.

      2. Well, John’s prediction is that gays destroy everything they touch – I guess only time will tell.

        1. No. The Left destroys everything it touches.

          1. Now that I agree with.

    2. Did you miss the part about how their anti-gay position was losing them donations and threatened their existence as a national organization? Presumably the Scouts actually want people to join, and they are apparently more interested in that than in maintaining a retrograde bigoted political stance out of principle.

      Things worked how they’re supposed to. Society progresses toward more tolerance, and holdouts like you cry about it until everyone stops listening.

      1. No Tony, it was losing corporate donations. They had plenty of people who wanted to join. It wasn’t the people who actually did scouting who were upset. It was fascist assholes like you that can’t stand the idea that anyone is allowed to think differently.

        1. So if you’re so in favor of diversity of opinion, why are you bitching at the BSA merely changing its mind on this issue? You seem to want them to remain anti-gay despite all the social pressure, loss of corporate donations, and basic decency that might motivate them otherwise.

          What is with you and your obsessive need to have gays be treated like shit in this society? What do you get from that?

          1. Because I know they did it against the will of their members and that the alternatives will be subject to the same bullshit from people like you.

            1. As a Den Leader and from two boys in Scouts: We are fine with this. Our girl doesn’t start Venture Scouting for another couple of years, but she says she’s fine with it, too.

              So it’s not against the will of ALL it’s members. It’s against the will of SOME of the members and THOSE members can choose to join a pack/troop that has no gays.

              Free choice, isn’t it amazing?

          2. Re: Tony the Marxian

            What is with you and your obsessive need to have gays be treated like shit in this society?

            The basic argument of Marxians, on the same intellectual level as a 2-year-old who sees something someone else has.
            “Mine!”
            “Mine!”
            “Mine!”
            “Mine!”

            Gays are not entitled to memberships, Tony. Neither is you or me.

        2. The likely result is this will sour the people who are actually interested in scouting by not sticking to their principles, while not attracting any gay activist fellow travellers because they were not all that thrilled with this kind of stuff in the first place.

          1. ^This. Any idea that this will become a Boy Scout renaissance is laughable. Boy Scouts has always (at least for the last 30 years) had a reputation as a conservative, religious, and patriotic group. What, exactly, is attractive to the chattering class about that? You really think that Sally Socialist-Feminist and her yuppie boyfriend Billy Progressive are now going to be knocking down the doors of their local Boy Scout troop, signing their kids up?

            1. I predict that the Boy Scouts will go the way of the Episcopalian Church. They have both become even more irrelevant as they have attempted to adapt to changes in cultural mores.

              1. Not exactly – they have become more concerned about being fashionable instead of being useful.

      2. Re: Tony the Marxian

        Did you miss the part about how their anti-gay position was losing them donations and threatened their existence as a national organization?

        It was all about the money, after all. Imagine that.

        Presumably the Scouts actually want people to join

        Now they may not want anything else but the money, damned be the membership.

        Things worked how they’re supposed to. Society progresses toward more tolerance

        Leave it to the Marxians to think that bludgeoning people towards conformance is the same as promoting tolerance.

        1. Oh FFS… the application of corporate financing is now “bludgeoning”? Did it ever occur to you that corporations tend to choose their sponsorships in response to public will?

          1. If corporate donors aren’t conservative, that’s bullying.

            1. It is quite likely that this will.help corporate donations and decimate membership.

          2. Re: Rhywun,

            the application of corporate financing is now “bludgeoning”?

            No, and that is now what I am responding to. I am responding to this: “Society progresses toward more tolerance”

            Remember a certain photographer who wouldn’t do gay weddings?

          3. Small issue with your second question. They don’t bend to the will of the public, or even their customers. They bend to the will of a small number of loudmouths.

            1. They bend to the will of a small number of loudmouths.

              Only if it makes good business sense. And that requires being able to read the mood of the public.

              1. Rhywun. I have my doubts about that. Over the last few years I’ve seen one corporation after another bow to twitter mobs. Even when the mob was composed of people that their customer base would generally despise.

                1. Such as? And I assume these corporations were soundly punished for their stupid decisions?

          4. the application of corporate financing is now “bludgeoning”?

            When it’s kicked off by a political process, including President Obama weighing in, yes.

            Let’s not pretend that the 2013 kerfuffle is somehow separate from this decision.

            1. As noted above, this has been talked about for decades. It was not “kicked off by a political process”.

              1. Right, it’s been talked about for decades, but what got the ball rolling on action? Do you really think that it’s a coincidence that the ball started rolling once it became a focus of the FedGov in 2013?

                1. How are you deciding when the ball started rolling? There were court battles over issues like this years before 2013.

                  1. I’m going off of this decision

                    Yes, there had been debate and court battles prior, but this was the big decision. There’s a difference between a 20-year-old debate that didn’t get much of anywhere (besides some court decisions) and a paradigm shift in the way the national organization (BSA) treated gays.

                    I don’t disagree that this was an issue the BSA was struggling with prior to 2013, but I point out that for an issue that had been simmering since at least the 80s, it’s amazing how fast they came to a decision after Obama and other government officials weighed in.

  7. No government pressure?

    I’m not sure how you call revocation of usage of public property rights to be ‘no government pressure’, but whatever.

    And today’s scouts are the scouts who aren’t allowed to shoot water pistols at anything but targets–and water balloons are to be no bigger than a golf balls. But scoutleaders can use water pistols for ‘cooling sprays’.

    Gods above.

    I’ve got a friend who played the ‘waif’ card until his 30th birthday made it impossible (well, it was impossible before that, but nobody had the heart to tell him). Can’t help thinking of that.

    Can’t help thinking of the outrage at the Catholic Church.

    Can’t help noticing that there’s a group called NAMBLA that operates in plain view (and please, don’t try to point out that they’re pedophiles, not homosexuals–pedophiles who prefer their own sex are just as homosexual as men who only have sex with other consenting adults–even if they are a bit waifish).

    Keep wondering–if something happens, how quickly will the usual suspects be all over the BSA for having a homophobic culture that made this type of thing inevitable?

    There’s just a few too many red flags

    I’ve always thought it should work like this–

    Gay kids, fine.

    All scoutleaders should have kids in scouting. Their sexual orientation should be irrelevent. Having a kid in the mix should be non-negotiable. Simple.

    1. This must be one of those Facebook people I’ve been hearing about.

      1. We went like a whole ten minutes before people started the ‘gays=pederasts’ idiocy. I’m impressed.

        1. No, John, pederasts are pederasts. They are homosexual men who prefer sex with underage boys.

          Does liking underage boys make one any less gay?

          It certainly doesn’t make straght men who like underage girls less straight.

          It’s like you want to extend a ‘remove’ to homosexuality from pedophilia that you don’t want to extend to heterosexuality.

          One can be a gay or a straight pedophile. The problem isn’t the orientation, John, the problem is the pedophilia.

          1. It certainly doesn’t make straight men who like underage girls less straight.

            I should say not. Hmpf.

          2. The problem isn’t the orientation, John, the problem is the pedophilia.

            Which explains why you brought it up in a story unrelated to pedophilia.

            1. As boy scputs are too old to be victims of pedophiles.

              1. It’s like raising the specter to pedophilia in an article about teachers. Yeah, it’s possible but it’s not the point.

                Unless, of course, the intent is to deliberately link the two. In which case it’s just delusional.

            2. Wait–are you seriously saying that you’re unaware that the thing the BSA is afraid of is pederasty?

              That pederasty is the ONLY reason this is an issue at all?

              1. If that was the case and if there was a shred of legitimacy to it, then no American would send their kid to school let alone the Boy Scouts.

          3. The problem is that you immediately brought it up in an article about allowing gays in the scouts, which had nothing to do with pedophilia whatsoever. My earlier comment was calling out the fact that someone was going to make the implication that horrible pedophiles were going to sneak in pretending to be gays.

            Actually I’m curious in regards to one of your qualifications: adopted children of gay parents are applicable right?

          4. So clearly the problem in Scouts, Boy or Girl, is gay pederasty. But then any teacher spends all day around children of both sexes, inviting the possibility of gay, straight, or bisexual pederasty. The same goes for parents, who are often around children as well. The only solution is that kids cannot ever be around adults. Which is a position I’ve advocated for years.

      2. Why?

        What’s wrong with all kids accepted and all scout leaders being parents without regard to orientation?

        Or is that litany of red flags bothering you? Does it sound ignorant? You betcha! It will sound ignorant right up until something happens–and then there will be a bunch of people who blame what happened on that ignorance.

        But what part of it isn’t true?

        1. I can’t even make head or tails out of your post to properly form a response. Sorry.

        2. Dude, no one here speaks Hysterical Gibberish, except John. Try it again in English.

          1. I tend to think myself a bit too overly paranoid but my god some Reason commentators make me look sane.

    2. What are “public property rights” in your estimation? I ask for a friend.

      1. Obviously there should be no “public property” aside from the basic functional buildings and land necessary for the operation of government, but the practicality is that vast swaths of the country are owned by the federal government, and use of “public property” has always been politicized. Granting or not granting access to public spaces is a powerful tool in shaping behavior. Just ask anybody who’s tried to give a homeless guy a free sandwich in a public park.

      2. Scouts used schools and other public property places, like libraries–places paid for with tax dollars as meeting places. After this whole thing started the scouts were told that they couldn’t use those sites–but they could still pay taxes for them.

        It was discrimination, by the state, based on their beliefs.

        1. Sorry, but you’re 100% full of shit.

          In response to these changes and litigation, the federal government passed laws mandating that BSA units be given equal access to local and state-level governmental resources. The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act, enacted in 2002, requires public elementary and secondary schools that receive U.S. Department of Education funding to provide BSA groups equal access to school facilities.[130] The Support Our Scouts Act of 2005 requires state and local governments that receive HUD funding to provide BSA groups equal access to governmental forums (lands, facilities, etc.). State and local governments still have flexibility regarding the provision of special access to the BSA.[131]

          1. No, I’m not. From the link–

            “Some cities, counties, and states have ordinances or policies that limit government support for organizations that practice some types of discrimination. When the BSA’s membership policies are perceived as contrary to these laws, some government organizations have moved to change the terms under which the BSA is allowed to access its resources.”

            They WERE denied, they fought and, apparently, won.

            I’m not full of shit, I’m just behind the curve. Which I gladly admit.

          2. Not quite 100%. If you could actually comprehend what you read (or understood how federalism works), this sentence in your quoted portion would be relevant:

            State and local governments still have flexibility regarding the provision of special access to the BSA.

            That’s what happened, for example, in the much-ballyhooed case of the Philadelphia lease controversy.

            Pulling the previous “special access” (in the form of a token $1per year lease) doesn’t run afoul of the federal law, to the extent that the fedgov even has jurisdiction on such matters, but it’s still intended to screw the organization into compliance by having the practical effect of raising the rent 200,000%.

            1. Sorry, PM, but “After this whole thing started the scouts were told that they couldn’t use those sites–but they could still pay taxes for them” is not the same as “they only have equal access now.” Azathoth was clearly behind, as he says.

              1. Narrowly technically correct, which is the best kind, but still a distinction with no real difference, and one I’m sure you would see differently if it were someone else’s ox being gored. It’s okay to admit that the intended effect was to stick it to the nasty, mean-spirited bigots who wouldn’t play ball with the local non-discrimination ordinance. Yes, technically, changing from “special” to “equal” access is not actually withholding access. But when that change entails upending an 80 year old essentially free land-use lease in favor of a market-rate lease that brings the price from $1 to $200,000 per year, while a simple change in the organization’s policy could preserve the $1 per year status quo, there’s no ambiguity as to what’s going on.

                1. (And SLD, this would all be neatly dealt with in an ideal world where there were no such distinction as “special” or “equal” access to public lands, because the government didn’t own any property except what it acquired for the direct purpose of administering its functions. But in the current reality, it would be disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that this wasn’t intended as a punitive measure)

                  1. Okay, I’m not trying to pretend it wasn’t punitive. I was mostly interested in correcting the record as far as whether or not the BSA was currently allowed to use public facilities, and they are. The fact is that folks tried to push them out and by and large failed, whereas Azathoth was claiming they had succeeded. Now, if you want to claim they did succeed, I disagree. They may not enjoy the same preferential access they once did, but anti-BSA activists failed in pushing them out of public facilities.

        2. After this whole thing started the scouts were told that they couldn’t use those sites–but they could still pay taxes for them.

          I pay taxes for F-35Bs they won’t let me fly. Bunch of dicks. That plane is at least 1/300millionth mine.

    3. I’ve got a friend who played the ‘waif’ card until his 30th birthday made it impossible (well, it was impossible before that, but nobody had the heart to tell him). Can’t help thinking of that.

      I have literally no clue what this is supposed to mean.

      1. Forget it, it’s Facebook-land.

      2. He looked like a runaway and played that up to a bunch of guys who were basically sugar daddies. Does that help?

        1. No, unfortunately it doesn’t.

        2. Well, it makes the sentence meaningful, but I have no idea what it has to do with the BSA.

      3. It’s either something about poor children or Japanese anime romantic relationships.

        1. We need Krieger’s Waifu to weigh in here.

    4. All scoutleaders should have kids in scouting. Their sexual orientation should be irrelevent. Having a kid in the mix should be non-negotiable. Simple.

      Having only a daughter, I was asked by the widow of my former Scoutmaster to be the Cubmaster for her church’s new pack in order to start it up. Once it was up and running, hopefully a parent would be motivated to step in the role.

      Somehow, I managed to lead the pack for a whole year without molesting anyone.

      Imagine that.

      1. You’re such a bad liar. You molested the every-loving shit out of those kids, and you damn well know it.

        1. He is black, after all.

          1. Please…I’m just as black as, say, Michael Jackson!

            Let’s be serious now.

        2. Is it my fault I thought they were using the term “pinewood derby” as a double-entendre?

          1. That is a sublime comment, and made my day.

    5. Am I just not saying this right?

      If I had said that putting young boys into close quarters with a bunch of sexual deviants could lead to outcomes you don’t want, what would you all have said?

      1. I would have said you’re a collectivist and a bigot. But I kind of got that from what you did say anyway.

        1. And if I then said that I was referring to Catholic Priests and altar boys?

          Never mind– what sounded clever in my head is definitely not coming across that way in these posts. Nor, clearly, is trying to correct it. It just gets worse and worse.

          so I’m done

          1. Um… OK.

  8. I might not be too concerned about my 8-year old son hanging around a gay guy, my 16-year old son is another matter. I might not be too concerned about my 8-year old daughter hanging around a straight guy, my 16-year old daughter is another matter. I know the first case makes me a homophobe, am I to assume the second case makes me a heterophobe? No, gays are not child molesters, but not all Boy Scouts are little kiddies. (Although, to be truthful, I would take a closer look at any 16-year old who still takes scouting seriously than I would any gay guy who volunteers to go spend the weekends camping out with a 16-year old who still takes scouting seriously.)

    1. I might not be too concerned about my 8-year old daughter hanging around a straight guy

      /tries to look innocent

  9. Ah Boy Scouts. A bunch of pubescent boys sleeping, swimming, and showering together. Truly the most heterosexual time of my life.

    1. As is all this anti-gay nonsense. After all, what is more gay than worrying about what another dude does with his dude stick?

  10. In May, the Boy Scouts’ president, former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, called the ban “unsustainable” and said it needed to change.

    Leave it to Scott to say that this is not evidence of government intervention. The idea of giving the presidency of the Boy Scouts of America to former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates can be compared to giving the reign of Google to James R. Clapper.

    When will it dawn on all of you that giving away institutions to former government whores is still the same as giving the institutions to government? Or is your naivete up to the level of a romantic girl and believe people can change that dramatically?

    Anyway, I do give my condolences to the BSA and also thank them for making the decision for us when it came to asking my son to join the Boy Scouts after his graduation from Webelos. I don’t want him to witness something similar to what Barry Lyndon once witnessed ? two British officers skinny-dipping in a river while swearing love for each other.

    1. May your son wear short shorts.

      Christ man, it’s the Scouts. There are and always have been plenty of gay members and leaders. Actually, wouldn’t you prefer they be allowed to be open about it? Think of the Church and how its repressiveness seems to lead to the actual problem of child rape.

      Not that the Scouts is the first place I’d put my son if I was concerned about his precious masculinity. Maybe the women’s softball team.

      1. Re: Tony the Marxian

        May your son wear short shorts

        MAY THEy FORCE it into YOU. Or how does it go, again?

        There are and always have been plenty of gay members and leaders

        Possibly. But that is just anecdotal evidence. Now there’s a guarantee. That is a big difference.

        Not that the Scouts is the first place I’d put my son if I was concerned about his precious masculinity.

        I’ not concerned about that. I am concerned about the masculinity of others, now that Gates put the seal of certainty.

        1. You’re a really terrible anarchist. You know what the absolute worst form of collectivism is? Painting an entire minority group with negative stereotypes and excluding them from mainstream society because of your fear. When has that ever been a good idea?

          1. The Ebola outbreak?

          2. I dunno, people’s cows aren’t dying nearly as much from malicious sorcery after the Inquisition got rid of most of the witches. So it can be a good thing.

    2. believe people can change that dramatically

      What’s so dramatic about it? This has been in progress for decades.

      I don’t know that Gates former position has anything to do with this. I guess you’re claiming that the Boy Scouts would we remain open only to closeted gays under someone else’s leadership?

      1. This has been in progress for decades.

        It’s been under discussion since at least the 80’s, I remember it.

  11. Progress?

    I’m sure some people feel that way.

    Others may want to start their own group with a more exclusive take.

    When people have more options to choose from, I think of it as progress.

    I’m sure not everyone feels that way.

    If there were now fewer options for people to choose from, I wouldn’t think of it as progress.

    1. Sure options are good. Why couldn’t the people who wanted guy scout leaders just started their own organization? Why did the people in the BSA who were happy with how it was have to do that?

  12. Well this thread didn’t disappoint. GAYSTAPPPPPPPPPPPPPOOOOO

    1. “I haven’t had this much sex since I was a Boy Scout leader!”

    2. Well, why don’t you get out of here and… and.. read a book, or something!

    3. Gays are becoming like Duke Basketball. There is nothing wrong with Duke Basketball. It is no better or worse than any other basketball program. But if you have ESPN shove Duke and how fabulous they are down your throat for a few years, you will start to hate them.

      Same thing with gays. At some point, you just get sick of hearing about it. They are maybe 3% of the population. It is not Jim Crow and it is not 1955. Yet, every fucking thing relating to them is now the very most important civil rights issues EVER!!!

      If you were to list the injustices going on in this country in order of magnitude, gay rights would be way down the list. Yet, it sucks so much of the air in Libertarian circles. There are tens of thousands of people in jail for decades for merely possessing or selling drugs, God knows how many outright innocent people in prison. Our government is out of control and going to bankrupt us. A large part of society just wants to repeal the First Amendment, but gays joining the Scouts is really fucking important.

      1. We’ll just have to get more intersectional or whatever. White gay males are super privileged so it won’t matter what happens to them and we’ll just keep whittling down the line to the next form of oppression.

        1. The entire Left is about white women and gay white men getting their privilege on at everyone’s expense.

          1. You know, John, I just realized H&R has become your daily primal scream therapy where you squeal and rant to get out your anger that homos can be treated close to your equal.

            1. No one is my equal. So yeah, that includes homos.

              However they are treated, It isn’t that bad compared to pretty much everyone else and I am tired of hearing about them. I don’t care. Would it be too much to ask that they shut the fuck up for a while and perhaps let some other issues take the stage?

              1. I am tired of hearing about them. I don’t care. Would it be too much to ask that they shut the fuck up for a while and perhaps let some other issues take the stage?

                Had you considered, I dunno, not reading about it and not commenting?

              2. This has to be the greatest self-unaware statement of all time. You are the person who has spilled more virtual ink on this subject than anyone here. You have written THOUSANDS of comments on this. Books worth. You are fucking obsessed. You want to hear less about this? STOP FUCKING RANTING ABOUT IT INCESSANTLY.

                Your projection is as bad, if not worse, than the progs and SJWs. Congratulations, you are exactly the same as the people you hate so much. Just like them!

                1. Yes Episiarch, I am tired of hearing about the gays but they haven’t gotten that memo, so perhaps I should repeat.

                  And yes Epiriarch, PROJECTION. It is always projection. it is your move and the only move you have these days.

                2. This Onion article is quite relevant.

                  http://www.theonion.com/blogpo…..cock-11150

                3. John is ranting about the queers and what they’ve done to the soil again?

                  It must be a day ending in ‘Y’.

              3. John, have you ever considered that other people have the right to talk about, and care about, whatever issues they want? It’s not your right to dictate to other people what issues they should think are important.

            2. Episiarch, we need to support regular psychological and therapeutic treatment here just to keep everyone moderately sane. If some H&R member were to go nuts and become a woodchipper vigilante we’d never hear the end of it.

              1. John, you are single-handedly raising the click count and post count of the gay articles to new record highs. Imagine, publications responding to economic incentives.

                1. Good Old Man. I am just doing my part for the most important civil rights issue of our time apparently. You should be happy about that.

                  1. I am just doing my part for the most important civil rights issue of our time apparently.

                    My suspicions are confirmed yet again. I had always thought that the combination of your shrill denials yet your irresistible attraction to this issue was indicative.

                    1. Yes Old Man. I am also gay. You got me.

          2. The gays are so mighty they have the power to compel you to spout gibberish like this.

            1. I know, the gays are the most important group in society and their rights must be pursued at the expense of all else.

      2. Gays are becoming like Duke Basketball

        You know what? I don’t like basketball, I don’t know who the fuck Duke is, and I don’t care.

        If you’re tired of hearing about gays – stop listening.

        1. You can’t. And fuck the gays. Seriously, they are the most coddled and protected group in society, yet bitch and moan more than anyone. Whatever you think of race relations, the blacks in this country really are on the bottom. The gays in contrast are generally on the top. Yet, they appropriate the language of the civil rights movement and act like because they can’t get a cake baked for their wedding or can’t join some organization they hate, they have it just like black people do. It is insulting and I am tired of hearing it.

          1. “Seriously, they are the most coddled and protected group in society, yet bitch and moan more than anyone.”

            The lack of self-awareness in this comment is just staggering. Absolutely staggering. This coming from a straight white Christian man who incessantly whines about how bad those groups have it our society? Yes John, the gays have gone is slightly over 10 years from not even being able to legally have sex in some places to being elite overlords ruling over the population. Completely delusional.

            1. Piss off. Gays are better educated, and have a higher annual income than average. Whatever oppression they have received clearly hasn’t affected the outcome of their lives that much. Meanwhile, we have millions of people in this country who are real victims of injustice and seen their lives ruined. But lets not talk about them. Lets talk about gays because somewhere a gay couple might have to make a fucking will. Lets take time out of talking about the drug war, the people getting stomped on by the government in any number of ways, and lets spend years worrying about the fact that some rich gay couple has to make a will and get a medical power of attorney.

              It has been 30 years since Lawrence. In 1985, gay rights were important because being gay could get you thrown in jail. In 2015, they are so far down the list of priorities, yet dominate the national conversation. When does it end?

              1. Did I really miss 18 years of my life when I went to bed last night? I did not realize it was 2033.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

                1. I confused Lawrence and Bowers. Regardless, callidissident, after that decision, gay rights became a lot less pressing of an issue. Yet, it didn’t.

                  Wouldn’t you agree that gay rights today is really not that important? Aren’t there a lot worse things going on and a lot of people suffering injustices who need the attention of the public than gay rights?

                  1. John, I think any objective observer who read through this thread would come to the conclusion that you are not merely bothered by gay rights getting more attention than other more pressing issues. That is abundantly clear for multiple reasons. One of which is that you have no problem whining incessantly about issues far more trivial than the ones you bring up in comments now, including how awful it is that private organizations sometimes make changes in reaction to social change. Even if you saw that as a bad thing, that’s a much more trivial issue than the drug war and the economy, and yet for some reason you don’t have a problem going on and on about that.

                  2. Lawrence did end the most odious discriminatory laws in this country, but it hardly solved all the hardships gay people face overnight. Gay people, rightly, care about a lot more than just laws regarding the legality of who they have sex with. Even ignoring marriage and shit like that, gay kids get abandoned by their families and put out on the streets all the time. Gay kids get bullied and beat up in school all the time (and such violence happens to gay adults as well, even if less commonly). Gay people get discriminated against at work all the time. It is not at all an uncommon occurrence in this country for gay kids to kill themselves due to the stigmatization they face from their families, peers, and communities. Even if these are issues where the government shouldn’t (from a libertarian POV) change any laws to solve (though some could be better enforced), that doesn’t mean they’re not serious issues that people are idiots for caring about. Just because you think the worst thing a gay person ever has to face in life is someone telling them they don’t personally approve of their relationships on religious grounds doesn’t mean many of them don’t actually face far more serious and ongoing issues in their lives.

                    1. Even ignoring marriage and shit like that, gay kids get abandoned by their families and put out on the streets all the time.

                      That happens to lots of people? Is it any better when straight people have lousy parents. That is called life being hard. But gays make “my family sucks” into a national civil rights issue.

                      Gay people get discriminated against at work all the time.

                      Citation needed. I see no evidence of that at all.

                      It is not at all an uncommon occurrence in this country for gay kids to kill themselves due to the stigmatization they face from their families, peers, and communities.

                      Citation needed. And even if it is true, maybe telling every kid who has any kind of homosexual experience they are automatically gay and that being gay is inborn such that you can’t help but be one and once you have done something you are one, doesn’t help things? Perhaps that raises the stakes a bit on youth sexuality?

                      And lots of kids commit suicide. Why are the other suicides not civil rights issues but gay kids doing it are?

                      Just because you think the worst thing a gay person ever has to face in life is someone telling them they don’t personally approve of their relationships on religious grounds doesn’t mean many of them don’t actually face far more serious and ongoing issues in their lives.

                      Everyone has issues. I don’t see everyone demanding the government do something about it.

                    2. You’re absolutely ridiculous John. Suicide, bullying, abandonment, etc. are no big deals, suck it up, but someone daring to criticize the fucking Boy Scouts is a travesty that just shows how oppressive and intolerant our society has become. You clearly only give a shit about social pressure when it comes from the left, and don’t give a damn when it comes from the right, even when it’s in a far more odious manner.

              2. Simply batshit crazy.

                I don’t know what else to say. He’s completely lost his fucking shit.

                1. I know Frank. Someone actually said they don’t give a fuck about the GAYS. It is just unthinkable Frank. How could anyone not care? How could anyone not find Gays to be the most important group in the world and their issues to be the only thing that matter?

                  It is just insane.

                2. John is sort of like a crazy cat lady. Once you get a certain number of cats, it’s just a sad irreversible downhill slide into looney town. It works that way for comments on a thread as well.

              3. Gays are better educated, and have a higher annual income than average.

                A myth that you keep repeating despite being educated otherwise and which nonetheless would be irrelevant if other forms of injustice persist.

                What gays do have are highly effective organizations pushing for their civil rights. The push ends when the goals are realized. I don’t see how standing in the way makes it stop any faster. Do you really think you’re going to win?

                1. The push ends when the goals are realized.

                  Those goals are called CONFORMITY

                  1. I consider shaking bigoted assholes out of their innocent complacency and forcing them to see the world as the diverse place it is a mere happy side-effect. The goal is legal and social equality.

                    In the marketplace of ideas, sometimes an idea wins and sometimes an idea loses. Homophobia is one that deserves to lose, and I’m not going to cry over your loss of the ability to be a giant bigoted douche in polite company.

                    If it makes you feel any better try imagining walking in the shoes of people who’ve had to live their entire lives obeying the rules made by people who hate them for how they were born.

                2. The push ends when the goals are realized.

                  Haaaaaa ha ha ha ha! The push never ends. Once a set of goals are realized, that’s the time to push for new goals. First it was getting gays listed as a special class, but that was never going to be used to push for gay marriage. Then of course it was gay marriage, but that was never going to be used to go after churches and other organizations that don’t want to recognize it. Now it’s going after churches and other organizations that don’t want to recognize it. What the fuck is next?

                  1. What the fuck is next?
                    exchanging the current civil punishment for criminal consequences.

                    1. exchanging the current civil punishment for criminal consequences.

                      Thoughtcrime is death.

                  2. What the fuck is next?

                    A discussion about the appropriateness of public accommodation laws?

                    (As opposed to you’re retarded “teh gheyz are coming to eat our chilrenz” ass clownery.)

                    1. A discussion about the appropriateness of public accommodation laws?

                      Yeah Frank it will be a discussion. it won’t be a one sided conversation where anyone who objects is called a bigot and run out of society.

                      I won’t ask you if you ever get embarrassed because you are stupid and part of being stupid is not realizing you are.

                      God you are an idiot.

                    2. A discussion about the appropriateness of public accommodation laws?

                      That discussion was already had 40 years ago. Spoiler: we lost.

                    3. A discussion about the appropriateness of public accommodation laws?

                      Yeah, right. Like John said, anyone who even questions the appropriateness of those laws is immediately labeled as a hater and then ostracized. Those laws are not going away. Ever. If you can’t see that then you’re blind or stupid. Likewise, if you couldn’t see SSM as a means of using those laws as a weapon against anyone who disagrees, you’re blind or stupid. I don’t think you’re stupid. So, what’s blinding you?

                  3. Once a set of goals are realized, that’s the time to push for new goals.

                    What’s it to you? Stop being a lazy bastard and go try to realize some of your goals. You’re not in charge here.

                    The slippery slope, always a hallmark of a solid argument. What could possibly stand in the way of the gays and their inevitable march toward dominion over thought and space… Except a population dominated by heterosexuality, Christianity, and reflexive conservatism.

                  4. You still seem really confused about when and where gays were considered a “special class” vs. when and where gay marriage recognition was enacted.

                    1. You still seem really confused about when and where gays were considered a “special class” vs. when and where gay marriage recognition was enacted.

                      Here in Maine, about ten years ago, sexual orientation was added to the state constitution’s list of protected classes. Anyone who suggested that that would be used to challenge the state’s definition of marriage was soundly mocked. Before the ink was dry on that amendment, the state’s definition of marriage was challenged by the liars who were doing the mocking. You’re the one who is confused.

                      What is it about this issue that turns normally rational libertarians into emotional progressive liberals?

                    2. Sarc your insistence on a psychopathic approach to evaluating ideas is all the more ridiculous considering the ideas you actually have.

                      You do this backwards. You take the half-baked bigoted simple-minded bullshit you believe and simply slap it with the label “rational.” Actual rationality means evaluating ideas themselves using empirical means.

                      I suppose however it is possible that using a standard actually called “rational basis” the US judicial system somehow got it wrong and you got it right in this case.

                3. I’ve met some dumb, poor gay folk. It takes all types to make a world.

                  1. True. But they are not poor and dumb because they are gay.

          2. And fuck the gays.

            Suspicion confirmed.

          3. Well at least you’re being honest now. Insane and delusional, but honest.

            1. Sure Episiarch, It is insane to think that the drug war or taxes or people losing their businesses to regulation or the country going bankrupt might important enough that we stop worrying about gay rights for a while and concentrate on those things a bit more than we have.

              How important do you think this is? You tell me.

              1. It’s so unimportant that you’ve been hyperventilating over it for months now. If you don’t want to hyperventilate anymore, that’s admirable. Be the change you want to see.

              2. “Sure Episiarch, It is insane to think that the drug war or taxes or people losing their businesses to regulation or the country going bankrupt might important enough that we stop worrying about gay rights for a while and concentrate on those things a bit more than we have.”

                John. Seriously cool off for a minute, reread all your posts in this thread, and then reread this one. And then try to realize your own hypocrisy. It’s dumb to care about gay rights because of the drug war and the economy, but throwing a hissy fit about the Boy Scouts dropping an anti-gay policy is rational?

                1. Callidissident,

                  There is only so much of the public’s attention span. Imagine if all of the effort spend at getting gay marriage would have been spent on the Drug War?

                  And now of course gay rights is going to morph from “don’t arrest people for living the lives they want” to “sue and run out of business anyone who dissents”.

                  1. Yes, John, clearly it’s been the gays who have been stopping the drug war from being ended all these years. That’s seriously the line you’re going with?

                  2. John, do you ever get embarrassed? I mean, do you get to the end of the day and go back and reread what you’ve written and realize you’ve spent the entire day raving like a lunatic and say to yourself, “Shit, I’m ashamed of myself”?

                    Because, if you don’t…

                    …you should.

                    1. Frank,

                      You are the dumbest most conformist and simple minded poster on here. Seriously, you have never had a subversive, or original thought in your life. So spare me your condescension, it is just funny coming from you of all people.

                  3. Imagine if all of the effort spend at getting gay marriage would have been spent on the Drug War?

                    So get off your ass and contribute to a massive grassroots activism, fundraising, public perception, and political influence campaign like gay rights organizations did over decades. Maybe stop antagonizing them for their success and try to learn something from them about how to get shit done.

                    1. Sure tony I have. And I don’t even use drugs. But I give a shit about something besides getting my pony.

                    2. Well I don’t want to ever get married and I look down upon my peers who do. Maybe try drugs.

  13. In fairness, I have no idea why anyone would think there could ever be a downside to any of this.

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/07…..testicles/

    Gays activists have given the world every reason to trust that they won’t fuck this up.

    1. John, the reason you are so angry all the time and such a ridiculous bigot is because you get all of your information from places like the Daily Caller. When all you read are right-wing bullshit sources, you’re going to end up a paranoid bigot. There really isn’t a gay agenda to corrupt children. What should concern you is the fact that heterosexual couples the world over are given vast latitude with not just influencing, but creating and rearing, children. What could possibly be a greater potential source of harm to children than the billions of heterosexuals who produce them and confine them in their homes?

      1. Lead paint?

      2. Tony,

        I really don’t think a bunch of perverts are going to corrupt children. I do, however, think they still are a bunch of fucking weirdo deviants. There really isn’t anything that your side could do that you won’t defend. It is just astounding.

        1. Sorry if I don’t shape my political views about how all homosexuals should behave based on one anecdote in the fucking Daily Caller. Your brain has been harmed by those people. You are their victim. Seek help. Read the New York Times every once in a while.

          You name me one instance in which you’d be perfectly OK if white Christian fuckheads were getting their ox gored. Or isn’t the narrative here, and everywhere else, about how you’re the real victims of everything?

          1. Yeah Tony, a bunch of lesbians got up and spent the day telling 8th graders how to ass fuck each other with dildos. While at some level that is darkly funny, I can understand why the kids’ parents are upset and are not in the wrong here. But you of course thank the people giving the ass fuck lessons are just being oppressed because anyone is upset by it.

            1. I had sex ed in 5th grade, I believe. I honestly don’t see a problem with even graphic sex ed for kids who are all fucking each other anyway. And it goes without saying that gay and lesbian kids get the shaft, so to speak, when it comes to an education relevant to them.

              But the real problem here is you extrapolating an entire narrative about gay people from one hysterical Daily Caller characterization of one event in Bumfuck Iowa.

              1. Yes, Tony you probably fucked up from childhood. And again, you will defend anything.

                1. I’m defending a rational approach to life, not reading anecdotes from right-wing propaganda mills and losing one’s mind.

                  If there weren’t antigay bigots (and their propaganda outfits), there wouldn’t be a gay rights effort. Why don’t you go bitch at all your homophobic comrades and tell them to tone it down instead of blaming their victims for pushing back. That would put a stop to this huge waste of time of people advocating and winning rights for a historically oppressed minority.

                  1. Yeah Tony, teaching 13 year old kids how to ass fuck one another is a rational approach to life.

            2. John, how sexually repressed are you that you are threatened by a dildo? Imagine for a second, totally unrealistically, that all those 8th graders run out and start, safely and consensually, fucking each other with dildos. So what? What’s your problem? Is it FOMO?

              1. Are you insane wood? We are talking about kids. You can shove all of the didos you want up your ass. I will put my fist in behind it if you like. But maybe you should let 13 year old kids stay out of it. Just saying.

                1. I will put my fist in behind it if you like.

                  I, uh. Hmm.

                  Take a break, John.

                  1. C’mon… I think you’re all just trolling him now.

                    1. Rhywun,

                      They believe this. They are not trolling. i am an evil SOCON because I think teaching 8th grade kids how to ass fuck one another is a bad idea.

                      Don’t worry, this is not why so few people take Libertarians seriously.

                  2. Citizen,

                    I don’t want anyone to think I am sexually repressed or won’t help a guy out.

                2. How about we have an opposite day in which gay and lesbian youths are taught how gay and lesbians have sex, and Christians are told to go off and learn how to be giant douchenozzle bigots without any help from authority figures?

                  1. How about we have an opposite day in which gay and lesbian youths are taught how gay and lesbians have sex

                    Tony just because you were too stupid to figure out out, doesn’t mean everyone else in the world is. Almost no one in the world is as stupid as you. You forget that sometimes.

                    1. Young people “figuring it out for themselves” is how we got the meth belt.

      3. What should concern you is the fact that heterosexual couples the world over are given vast latitude with not just influencing, but creating and rearing, children.

        Way to let that mask slip.

        1. something something damned dirty breeders something something

  14. The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy strikes again.

  15. I think the scoutmaster at one point when I was in the BSA was likely gay. He was 40, single and lived alone. He wasn’t outwardly gay and certainly was not a pedophile. He also was the most dedicated and competent scoutmaster the troop had. I’m sure there have been very many gay scouts. Also, the formal rules for adult/boy interactions in the BSA will prevent sexual assaults if adhered to. Good for the BSA.

    1. And Robert Baden Powell may have been gay himself. Unlike Keynes he wasn’t nice enough to leave a codified gay sex journal, but he did write a fair bit of stuff on the ‘superiority’ of the masculine body type. He did also marry a twenty-three year old woman, but Keynes went around marrying Russian ballerinas so I have no idea.

  16. I think it would behoove the Scouts to move on past the gay thing and attempt to regain some of the resourcefulness teachings of the past. I find the current incarnation of Scouts to be too focused on cultural issues like this and not enough on how to properly take a dump in the woods.

    The Scouts have become wussified and it has nothing to do gays. The risk aversion so predominant in modern America has corrupted them and turned (not all of) them into pansies.

    I want a Worst Case Scenario Scouting program.

    1. Why are you othering people Lee? Don’t you understand that unless it has to do with gays and their rights, it really isn’t important? You and your survival skills stuff.

      1. Personally, I think the change was overdue and I was heavily involved in Scouts as a kid. I think they resisted it for too long and it became an overpowering issue that distracted from other priorities.

        1. There are other underlying issues that seem to be killing them beyond this.

    1. Sounds like women’s bodybuilding has a new champ.

  17. Word of the thread: fremdsch?men

    Definition: to feel ashamed about something someone else has done; to be embarrassed because someone else has embarrassed himself (and doesn’t notice)

    1. You mean like how I feel about many of the comments in this thread? That’s wonderful, I didn’t know there was a word for that.

      Though it figures it would be a German word.

      1. Like Eskimos and their words for snow are the Germans and their words for emotional responses to social awkwardness.

        When you need to describe reading a thread full of people getting rage boners over an administrative change, reach for your German dictionary.

      2. There’s a German word for everything.

      3. Look, say what you want about the Germans and their habits but their language has just a fantastic number of great single words that mean entire phrases. For efficiency, you see.

      4. We borrow French words to describe things and attitudes associated with cultural refinement. We borrow German words to describe things having to do with the suffering of others. Probably just an accident.

        1. Dennis Miller said something almost identical to your comment back in the 90s when he had his HBO show. It’s how I learned the word “schadenfreude”.

    2. Look, in sloopy’s defense, he was really drunk.

    3. You know who else thought German words were the most important?
      *runs away*

      1. Dieter?

      2. Volkswagen AG?

    4. Like I said a while ago, it’s a problem of exponential growth. The more yokelish this place gets, the more friendly it is to the yokels and the more yokelish it gets.

      1. Yuk it up from your ivory tower, college boy. /peels out in F350 blaring Toby Keith

        1. I won’t be satisfied until “libertarian” means “Republican, but dumber”.

          1. The term “Peckerwood Populism” really needs to catch on here.

            1. I think it just did!

            2. Peckerwood is the only anti-white slur that really has any heft to it, and that’s only because it’s directed at the stupidest, dirtiest, poorest whites. I approve of it wholeheartedly. I mean, your great-great-great granddaddy might have had to drink out of the shitty water fountain, but at least he weren’t no peckerwood.

          2. If you ask an awful lot of people, “libertarian” already means “Republican, but will sell you weed.”

        1. Hold it, are you telling me Rothbard was not sufficiently gay affirming?

          1. Huh?

            What I’m saying is that Rothbard’s belief that he could ride the tiger of David Duke-esque populism without getting bit was pure hubris.

            I’m intentionally trying to avoid the clusterfuck up-thread, so please don’t attempt to drag me in.

            1. I was kidding. I think it was Soave who described some person or another “as while not being sufficiently gay affirming…” So, the standard seems to be that Librarians must not just be for gay rights but “gay affirming” whatever that is.

              1. “Librarians.” Oh, John, you magnificent bastard.

        2. Libertarians are now split into paleos and modals.

          Wait a minute. We’re supposed to get ice cream??? NO ONE GAVE ME ICE CREAM

          1. How could you quote that and not this:

            The much heralded Koch-Crane strategy of appealing to ‘fiscally conservative, socially liberal” yuppies is part and parcel of the same misguided and disastrous strategy. Upper-middle class yuppie suburbanites may be lots of fun at cocktail parties, but they are precisely the wrong class for a libertarian strategy to covet.

            Plus ?a change…, and all that jazz.

            1. Who said that?

              1. Murray Rothbard. This paper is more or less the Lew Rockwellites giving notice that they’re seceding from civilized society.

                1. That statement is actually correct. There are a ton of people out there who would be willing to listen to a real anti-corporatist, anti-establishment pro freedom message but are not reached by Libertarians because Libertarians are obsessed with things that matter to upper middle class douche bags like food trucks and Uber. Most people don’t live in cities and don’t give a fuck about those things and pay no attention to Libertarians when they talk about them.

                  So, all they ever hear from Libertarians are drugs and gay marriage and never get the economic message. That is because the economic message is cloaked in a bunch of upper middle class hipster bullshit that no one but them cares about.

                  1. Most people don’t live in cities…

                    Depends on how you define “cities”, but as of the 2010 census, it’s actually the the exact opposite of what you just said.

                    1. They don’t live in cities where you can’t rely on a personal car to get around. Uber only matters in a few cities where it is just too expensive to park and most people rely on public transit or cabs.

                      No one in suburban Dallas gives a fuck about Uber.

                    2. They don’t live in cities where you can’t rely on a personal car to get around. Uber only matters in a few cities where it is just too expensive to park and most people rely on public transit or cabs.

                      It’s a bullshit statement anyway. I don’t even live close to anything that could be considered a city, but I care deeply about allowing the free market to make people’s lives better. Which is why I support Uber/Lyft…not because I need a ride.

                      But, that’s a position based in principle, so it’s no wonder John wouldn’t understand that.

                    3. It’s a bullshit statement anyway. I don’t even live close to anything that could be considered a city, but I care deeply about allowing the free market to make people’s lives better.

                      Good for you. But you are not who I am talking about. If everyone were so committed and as wonderful and gay affirming as you Frank, there wouldn’t be any need to reach anyone.

                      I am talking about the people who don’t care out of principle and are looking for someone who has answers to the things they actually care about. You know, normal people who are not ideological fanatics.

                    4. Depends on how you define “cities”, but as of the 2010 census, it’s actually the the exact opposite of what you just said.

                      This is also ignoring that Reason’s focus on ‘upper middle class hipster bullshit’ probably has something more to do with their obsession with the ‘Libertarian Moment’ and trying to appeal to millennials. John may not like it, but the pop culture for millennials is pretty ‘gay affirming’ and full of ‘upper middle class hipster bullshit’ so it’s not a surprise that they’d cater to it.

                    5. I mean, the fact that they’re posting ‘John Oliver DESTROYS *blank*’ articles makes it pretty obvious who they want their demographics to be.

                    6. No John. It has something to do with them being upper middle class hipsters who think what is important to them is automatically what is important to everyone else.

                    7. John, consider you spend a great deal of time lecturing people on what should be important to them (FILTHY COSMOS MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR GAY WEDDING CAKES) forgive me if I question your ability to determine the motives of ‘upper middle class hipsters’.

                    8. John,

                      If not conformity and fashion, what could motivate them? It sure as hell isn’t principle.

                    9. John, you’re really turning into Red Bo on this one. Of course you’re able to determine their motivations despite utterly failing to even understand the motivations of members of these threads without constructing your own imaginary ones. Keep demonizing those ‘upper middle class hipsters’ into whatever boogeyman you want. Just remember that it’s no different than ‘secret Republicans’.

                    10. John,

                      I offered an explanation. If you don’t agree, offer a different one. If you can’t do that, admit I have a point or at least you don’t know.

                      I fail to see how “they care about these things because this is what affects them and people like them”, is some crazy way to explain it.

                    11. John, I’m perfectly willing to admit ‘I don’t know’ if you’re also perfectly willing to admit the same, rather than proclaiming you know the motivations of people you utterly fail to understand. And no, just because I’m unwilling to throw myself into hysterics over what motivates the ‘upper middle class hipsters’ does not magically make you have a point. Really it just shows my unwillingness to collectivize and demonize people into an easy strawman and your willingness to jump to conclusions.

                    12. Really it just shows my unwillingness to collectivize and demonize people into an easy strawman and your willingness to jump to conclusions.

                      No it just shows your utter unwillingness to admit the obvious. What is your position here? That people never have blind spots or biases and that even if they did you could never tell what they were?

                      I ask you the same think I asked Zeb, if the staff were all redneck bikers and the board was obsessed with helmet laws, it would be wrong to see a connection? Really?

                    13. What is your position here?

                      My position is of course Reason has a bias but shockingly your insight into their motivations is questionable. Because John, you utterly lack self-awareness and utterly fail to recognize your own bias. Of course, because it’s something John doesn’t care about, it must be ‘upper middle class hipster bullshit’. The only people who could care about the things Reason writes about must be demonized and looked down upon in your view. You whine about how Reason belittles the ‘other side’ of arguments while belittling and arrogantly assuming theirs.

                      Seriously, if you come to Reason expecting anything other than Koch-style socially liberal libertarianism, quit bitching, it is pointless because you will not get it. You have spend literally days of manpower whining about this over the months, when you fundamentally don’t get that Reason’s writers really don’t care what you think. You are not going to get the anti-gay marriage articles you want from this site, stop whining and move the fuck on. Or just create a general “John highlights the socially liberal views of the Reason writers and then hysterically draws conclusions’ comment, post it once on every thread you want, and stop clogging them with your whining.

                    14. It must be really awesome to be able to read everyone’s mind like that. Or maybe it’s a terrible burden.

                      You know, John, maybe they think that the things that are important to them are important to many, but not all or even most other people but that they can’t reach everyone all at once, so they stick to what they know and care about.
                      No, couldn’t be that. They must be doing it because they are completely oblivious to all of the people who complain to them every day and really, truly believe that those people don’t actually exist.

                    15. BTW…sorry for getting a little salty with you the other day, Zeb.

                    16. “Salty”. Good with grasshoppers, I hear. No worries.

                    17. Zeb,

                      It couldn’t be that they have confirmation bias or anything. Nope. In what other context would you find such an explanation puzzling?

                      If Reason were staffed entirely by redneck bikers and spent 25% of the posts on helmet laws and I said “they just care so much about this because they are redneck bikers”, you would be offended that I claim to read their minds? Really?

                      Come on Zeb. Call a spade a fucking spade for once in your life.

                    18. “You know, John, maybe they think that the things that are important to them are important to many, but not all or even most other people but that they can’t reach everyone all at once, so they stick to what they know and care about.”

                      Seriously, this isn’t hard. If you want the Rothbard’s legacy, you go to LewRockwell. You want Objectivism, Objective Standard. If you want progressive-lite libertarianism, you go to Bleeding Heart Libertarians. If you want to be a conservative with libertarian leanings, you can probably get away with that on most conservative sites. If you want Koch-style socially liberal libertarianism, you go to Reason. I never expect Reason to cater to the anti-gay marriage crowd because I know who they are.

                  2. Most people don’t live in cities

                    81 percent of Americans are urban.

                    Just sayin’.

                    1. HM,

                      Being “urban” is not all the same thing. In the big cities in the Midwest and West, people drive their own cars. They don’t care about uber. Uber is a hipster white person thing.

                    2. That’s true. But Uber was a small point of your OP. For example, I’m sure Chicago has food trucks devoted to their wonderful hot dogs, no?

                    3. Uber is a hipster white person thing.

                      Holy fuck John get out of your bubble, these unsupported declarations of ‘fact’ are just getting sad.

                      I moved out of ‘urban’ areas (Ottawa, Montreal and the in betweens) about a year ago but there were plenty of non-white, non-hipster, regular people using Uber. Admittedly they were Canadian.

                    4. Admittedly they were Canadian.

                      There is your answer. And even if they care, it is pretty far down their list of economic priorities.

                2. You remember that Blish short story, “Beep!”, Warty? Where having developed a faster-than-light communications device, what was thought to be static at the beginning of each broadcast was actually a compressed form of all information sent using the device past, present, and future?

                  That article was like the Dirac communicator of Hit and Run comments, down to the sarcasm quotes around “social scientists”.

                3. more like “civilised society” have gotten so corrupt they are not a fit group with whom to continue. When the standards of righteousness are so currupt as to no longer be righteous, it comes into question who is seceding from whom.

            2. I was under the impression that this was the fountainhead of the stupid fucking cocktail parties meme. If that’s true, I hope that Jew Hell is real so that Rothbard is burning in it right now.

              1. I continue to be amazed that, despite being both a progressive sympathizing cosmo and a secret Koch employee, than I have yet to be invited to a cocktail party or given a cheque. What gives?

                1. I heard a certain New England regular hosted one just yesterday.

                  Sadly, I couldn’t attend as I must prepare for a week of boozing known as a “seminar” myself.

                  1. HM, you were missed at the party yesterday.

                    1. I’ll try my best for next time. And hopefully better weather!

                2. John,

                  Don’t worry they are not either. They just think their prog friends like them. They don’t and they are not really part of the group.

              2. I always found it funny how a lot of the conservatarians who hate people like Rothbard for being anti-US foreign policy anarchists adopted the same language he and his cohorts created.

                1. Maybe he was right about somethings and wrong about others Calidissident? Just because he was a nut about foreign policy didn’t mean he didn’t have a point about other things.

                  I loath Rothbard. But I do think that quote makes a valid point.

                  1. Considering the people Rothbard was trying to “reach out” to at the time, I’m not sure he has any credibility on the political wisdom of targeting certain groups. Also, I find it funny because a lot of the time the term “Cosmo” is used to describe certain views that are most closely associated with Rothbard’s brand on libertarianism/anarchism. For example, I’ve seen it used to describe anti-war or non-interventionist libertarians, positions that are held widely by different groups of libertarians, but are most closely associated with the LRC/Rothbard wing of libertarianism, who are the people who created the “cosmotarian” pejorative in the first place.

                    1. Calidissident,

                      That means both sides both agree and disagree with Rothbard. The same charges you make about conservatives can also be made against left leaning libertarians about foreign policy. They all hate Rothbard but adopt his language about nonintervention and foreign policy.

                      And no matter what you think about Rothbard, that statement on its own is true. Libertarians are terrible at appealing to the middle and lower middle class. It is just true.

        3. How do I know whether I’m a paleo or modal? Is there some kind of guide, perhaps one with handy identifiers such as the level of forehead sloping?

      2. Congratulations people, you’ve managed to make the local Rape Monster look down on you. I’m sure Steve Smith is ashamed too.

        1. Now I’m imagining STEVE SMITH doing the Iron Eyes Cody thing. I don’t know why but this makes me inexplicably sad.

      3. If the leftists can do it, why can’ t we? And there are few subject more fun to tweek the non yokuls on than the GAYZ. They just love the GAYZ. I am not even sure they know why, but they are like retards and cake.

      4. It’s a discourse problem, not a issue position problem. We have four groups here. 1) atheist/agnostic libertines (left libertarians), 2) religious anti-governmentalists (conservatarians), 3) unaffiliated libertarians and 4) trolls. In the effort to drive off the trolls, many of us have sunk to their level. The left libertarians and the conservatarians have become mired in the bullshit ad hominem that is TEAM politics because the trolls pull us in that direction.

        I mean, look at this comment section, you have John (representative of the conservatarian brigade, his self-identification notwithstanding) going on hyperbolic rants, followed by a handful of left libertarians playing the ad hominem game. If it happened on occasion, it would be entertaining and healthy. A multiple time per day frequency of this crap makes the signal to noise ratio of the comments suffer.

        I cast blame on both sides. The conservatarians (yokels if you prefer) are constantly shitting up threads by bitching about the leftward slant of Reason and the cosmos. The left libertarians (cosmos if you prefer) are constantly shitting the bed whenever somebody dare express anything but fawning adoration for their libertine views. Don’t engage the Bo(rg)! People can’t seem to expand that principle out to when other people (especially conservatarians) go all butthurt.

        1. You can’t cram me into your quaternary box, slaver!

          1. GET… IN….THERE!!!!!!

            *attempts to shove Citizen X into the box, but slips and falls into the troll box. Subsequently begins ranting against the Confederate flag*

        2. That is a good summary. But the COSMOs are not really even Libertines. I wish they were. Instead, they are just conformists who are terrified they might be on the wrong side of whatever the current cultural wave is.

          I have no problem with libertines. But I fucking hate conformists who pretend otherwise.

          And Reason is getting more of a leftward slant. They never go off the reservation except when they go full Prog. It only goes one way.

          1. I don’t buy it, John. I simply think there are a lot of people who make pragmatic decisions to support equality over absolute liberty, given that we will never see both. The conformists are too busy trying to cram a gun up the asses of Christian bakers to give a shit about libertarianism.

            1. I don’t understand why equality would ever even enter the equation. Who cares about equality? What matters is liberty. I don’t need to be equal, I just need to have the freedom to do what I want.

              1. What matters is liberty. I don’t need to be equal, I just need to have the freedom to do what I want.

                It’s about pragmatism. The fact is that the FedGov isn’t going to evolve this nation into libertopia. It ain’t gonna happen. So with that realization at hand, what is the best way to obtain the most liberty for the most people?

                If I have X amount of liberty and you have X/2 amount of liberty, equality certainly matters. Especially if it’s politically unfeasible for us both to end up with 2X liberty. Some people say that our society is more free if you have .75X liberty and I have .9X liberty than if you have .5X liberty and I have X liberty. Others say that the reduction of my liberty by 10% is encroaching tyranny. Obviously, the best result is for everybody to have 2X liberty, but that isn’t happening anytime soon.

                1. That is a good point Trshmnstr. And that is why I don’t trust them going forward. Ultimately, they are willing to see people they don’t like getting fucked as a price for getting people they do like Liberty.

              2. Equality under the law matters. Absolute material equality, of course, does not.

            2. Please, show me anyone here, other than Tony, who believes a baker should be forced to bake a cake for anyone?

            3. And there is a very strong case to be made that Libertarians should not have embraced gay marriage. Yet, no one at Reason made it. That is because they all think the exact same way on these kinds of issues.

              1. I do think you raise a good issue. It’s too bad that it’ll be drowned out by the histrionics of all parties through the rest of the thread. I think Reason tends to have a blind spot for those areas where libertarians disagree. I think they should make a concerted effort to at least expose those disagreements, if not advocate for both sides. It makes for a more interesting read, and it does a service to those of us who aren’t necessarily of the same mind as the Reason writers, despite still being libertarian.

          1. I can’t deny that it’s clever, but the Bo(rg) thing annoys me. The Borg were always my favorite thing in TNG and now I forever associate it with Bo.

      5. The stereotype is that Libertarians are just a bunch of pot smokers and love drug users. Really, other than the desire to get them out of prison, drug users don’t get any real love on here or at least nothing like the gays get. Being Libertarian in the 21st Century is all about being gay affirming. Drug users and various others have rights to be defended but not much else.

        1. Really, other than the desire to get them out of prison, drug users don’t get any real love on here or at least nothing like the gays get.

          These are threads where a certain commentator regularly goes on either brilliant drug-infused rants about the nature of the universe or their years of rejected Penthouse letters. Drug users get plenty of love.

          1. Well, the brilliant and entertaining ones do. Not so much the drunks and junkies, who I think most here agree must deal with the consequences of their own poor decisions.

        2. Stop collectivizing gays and demanding that everyone consider them subhuman and these threads would be a lot shorter.

        3. says who? LIbertarians are century dependent? Since when? Libertarians affirm queers? None I know. They can go put whatever bodily protrusion wherever they care to put it. But their agenda is far beyond doing their own thing with their thing. It has devolved into FORC|ING others to support, affirm, participate with, affirm, etc, their aberrant behaviour (and less than two percent of the population is by definition an aberration) no matter the harm or cost to those of whom they demand submission. The whole sick joke has become much like islam.. submit to MY will, affirm ME, help ME, or you will suffer/ Off with your head, or your bankroll, or your business, or whatever it is I can get my filthy hands on, that is their battle cry. If you can’t hear it ,you are deaf. Or wilfully complicit.

          In 1969 they determined to effect full reversal…. they would become the new :good guys” and anyone who opposes or disagreees with their perversion becomes the new persecuted, marginalised, sugjugated, banished, etc. Its happening, just like they planned it in Laguna Beach California in 1969.

    5. One time I opened the dictionary to fremdsch?men and John’s picture was next to it.

      *rimshot*

      1. Good. Better that than be some “you know the gays are just wonderful people and I am really as gay affirming as possible and really hope my kids turn out gay” type.

        1. Man sometimes you come across as reasonable, but I gotta say, in this thread, you really blew your stack. Like, a neutral observer coming in and not knowing your positions already would think it was a descent into madness. Sometimes you gotta just step back and take a deep breath.

          1. I totally blew my stake. I have hit my end about gay rights issues. I am sick of hearing about it. The gays got marriage. All that is left is going around and fucking with people and demanding acceptance. Libertarians should check out of the gay rights movement and realize that they are if they have any integrity likely going to be on the other side from now on as the debate moves to public accommodation and religious freedom. Yet, they seem unwilling to do that. That makes me skeptical that when the time comes they will be on the right side. I don’t think they have the guts to say no to the gays.

            1. I don’t think they have the guts to say no to the gays.

              “Well… ok, then, just the tip.”

              ?

              1. Just a little public accommodation. I promise I won’t go all the way. Just the tip.

            2. I would expect thoughtful libertarians would assume that gays are all individual people without a collective agenda besides maybe being left the fuck alone by the Christian bigots who have been murdering and oppressing them for a thousand years.

              But do stay on top of this John. You know how the gays are. Give them an inch and they ask for seven more. You are after all the expert on political priorities. And what could matter more than the possibility that gays might get a perceptible fraction of the power in society that Christians already have.

              1. Yes Tony, you expect them to support you suing and enforcing conformity.

            3. May I suggest then that you stop reading and commenting on the stories about gay issues? Can’t be healthy.

              1. And leave you people alone to smell your own farts? That wouldn’t be healthy for you Zeb.

                1. Probably also true. It’s certainly not helping my productivity or focus.

                  But honestly, it seems like you have a skewed view of people’s motivations. I can only speak for myself, of course, but it’s not so much a matter of smug, fart-smelling self-satisfaction that makes me still care a little bit about these stories, but genuine belief that more people being tolerant and accepting of gay people is good for everyone in much the same way that people being less racist is good.
                  I don’t think it is good or helpful to try to root out every little bit of remaining racism or anti-gay sentiment. If some people want to be assholes, that’s not my business if they aren’t in my face about it. But I do think it is nice to see changes like this that are accomplished with force.

                  1. That is just it Zeb, we need to learn to leave each other alone.

    6. Huh. It really DOES sound better in the original German!

  18. so much for god and country….they turned their back on god

      1. The one who rapes virgin teenagers, of course.

        1. Zeus?

        2. Choney – I will break my normal routine and note that your comment to OM above (“May your son wear short shorts”) wins the internetz for today.

          That was teh awsum.

  19. What a bunch of sissies !

  20. “Oh, look! My shirt fell off!”

  21. you fail us by calilng this open acceptance of immoral conduct “progress”. It is not. I know many involved in Scouting that are hanging on by a thread…… have vowed that the first incident involving a sodomite member or leader will be their curtain call with the organisation. Many will not go along with the furtner and institutionalised immorality which defines the sodomite way of life.

    1. 5000 cases over 50 years.

      That averages out to about a hundred cases a year. That’s one hundred boys molested by a scout leader every year.

      And the piece says that the BSA purged the files before the chart was made.

      Damn.

  22. One bigotry down, one bigotry to go. Now we need to convince the Boy Scouts to permit Atheists to participate.

  23. One bigotry down, one bigotry to go. Now we need to convince the Boy Scouts to permit Atheists to participate.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.