Panama Papers

[garbon]

Well, I agree.
I still don't understand this lashing out.

It is Marti?

[Solmyr]

These are universal rights yes, but you have to define them in the context of those communities that are denied them. It's not very useful to talk about them otherwise. I mean, opponents of gay marriage in Finland have argued that everyone already has the universal right to marry a person of the opposite sex, so everyone is already equal and there is no need for change.

[Legbiter]

I suspect the Icelandic PM will have a busy week.

Oh he's feeling the heat alright. It's more the outright lying about his ,shall we say, tax-optimized finances than the fact of them that'll burn him.

[Martinus]

These are universal rights yes, but you have to define them in the context of those communities that are denied them. It's not very useful to talk about them otherwise. I mean, opponents of gay marriage in Finland have argued that everyone already has the universal right to marry a person of the opposite sex, so everyone is already equal and there is no need for change.

Ok, fine, but I think this is a crux of the debate - whether the universal right is to marry a person of your choosing (irrespective of sex) or marry a person of the opposite sex only. It is a legitimate debate, though, I think and I'd rather we went through that route (which may take longer to achieve, say, marriage equality) than take a short cut through "gays are a special class so should get to marry whom they want" because then you end up with a legitimate question about polygamy.

Incidentally, I don't think gay marriage is as important as other protections, such as protection against discrimination in employment or protection from violence.

[Norgy]

I thought we all in general had a legal right not to be beaten up just for the sake of it.

[Solmyr]

These are universal rights yes, but you have to define them in the context of those communities that are denied them. It's not very useful to talk about them otherwise. I mean, opponents of gay marriage in Finland have argued that everyone already has the universal right to marry a person of the opposite sex, so everyone is already equal and there is no need for change.

Ok, fine, but I think this is a crux of the debate - whether the universal right is to marry a person of your choosing (irrespective of sex) or marry a person of the opposite sex only. It is a legitimate debate, though, I think and I'd rather we went through that route (which may take longer to achieve, say, marriage equality) than take a short cut through "gays are a special class so should get to marry whom they want" because then you end up with a legitimate question about polygamy.

Incidentally, I don't think gay marriage is as important as other protections, such as protection against discrimination in employment or protection from violence.

Well, over here actually the argument of what you call "regressive left" (or as we call them, the left, the Greens, and the liberal right) is precisely that any consenting adult should be able to marry another consenting adult regardless of gender, and the conservative right argues that gays are demanding special rights for themselves.

Incidentally, I have no problem with polygamy provided it includes consent from all parties and is not dependent on gender. Actually, IMO marriage itself should be a private contract between two consenting people, with the state merely acting as guarantor of the contract rather than deciding who can and cannot enter it. And naturally, you can enter into such contracts with anyone and any number of people you choose.

I agree with your last sentence, though it's all part of the whole movement to improve attitudes towards gay people.

[Brazen]

My definition of centre right includes basing your attitudes on fact and logic, not emotion. An emotional article from some feminist about facing "rampant mysogyny" and "death threats and rape threats" in a roleplaying Call of Cthulhu community sounds incredible at best and fabricated at worst (and likely to be the latter if the Rolling Stone "rape scandal" and gamergate taught us anything) so sharing that on Facebook with an apocalyptic commentary makes you look unhinged, especially combined with your ethusiastic attitudes about Islam.

I'm disappointed in you Marti. I haven't read the original source, but you must have seen evidence that any woman who has a strong opinion on any online channel is at risk of misogyny at best, and rape and death threats at worst. It's a real, frightening and all-too-frequent occurrence. You choosing not to believing this, plus using feminist and emotional as derogatory terms, makes me sad.

Yours truly,

Emotional Feminist

[Martinus]

Brazen, I didn't use the word "feminist" as derogatory - just a descriptive (although "third wave feminist" was probably the more appropriate term). The article drew parallels between online threats and Islamic terrorism, calling the former "white male terrorism". I find this stupid, emotional and frankly, insulting to actual victims of Islamic terrorism (not just those in Brussels, but flogged rape victims, beheaded gays and apostates etc. in countries with Sharia law). I'm sorry you are disappointed in me.

Yours truly,

Sociopathic Mysogyne

[Brazen]

In which case sorry for taking your post out of context. Just as well no-one here ever does that

A man calling a woman a feminist always puts me on guard because surely the default position is for women to believe women and men should be treated equally and therefore NOT believing so should be more worthy of pointing out.

[Solmyr]

Here's the original blog entry in question which I posted on my FB wall: http://latining.tumblr.com/post/141567276944/tabletop-gaming-has-a-white-male-terrorism-problem

Not once in the entire text are the words Islamic or Muslim mentioned.

[Martinus]

But she calls it "white male terrorism"!

Anyways, my post was made in the context of attacking Solmyr. I support feminism and gender equality and consider myself a feminist (but in these days third wave and fourth wave feminism has gone over the top - and yeah I also hate "buzzwords" like this as they signal a lot more than they should). Also I am now going through a anti-SJW phase so sorry sometimes nuance is lost in my posting (just as well noone else does it on Languish).

Frankly that's my current problem with Languish - I use it to post outrageous and exaggerated opinions and sometimes I worry this affects my opinion from people whom I know in real life.

[garbon]

I'm skeptical of the notion that fourth wave feminism even exists. From any of the scant articles on it, it doesn't really seem to have different aims than third wave feminism. Of course, it is probably attractive to try to carve out a scholarly notion that feminism has moved on from third wave feminism because of technology.

[Martinus]

I'm skeptical of the notion that fourth wave feminism even exists. From any of the scant articles on it, it doesn't really seem to have different aims than third wave feminism. Of course, it is probably attractive to try to carve out a scholarly notion that feminism has moved on from third wave feminism because of technology.

Fair enough but I think a lot of people (including many self-proclaimed feminists) already even third wave feminism to be objectionable.

[Solmyr]

But she calls it "white male terrorism"!

Terrorism is not limited to just being Islamic, you know.

Anyway, the derailing of this thread must be some kind of record even for Languish.

[viper37]

Not reporting your taxable income is a crime here.

I hate to take Marty's defense here (believe me, I do!), but having an offshore account is not the same as not reporting your taxable income.  These documents tell us who has an offshore account in Panama, not the reasons they have one.  And there is also the (admitedly, very small) possibility some of them did declare such account to the proper fiscal authorities of their country.

There could be other legitimate reasons too.  See, if I were the ukrainien president, with half my country controlled by russians or pro-russians groups, I'd like to insure myself a little in case they do make another big push in the near future (which is not impossible, given Russia's track record and general mo under Putin). Having an anonymous offshore account would make sure I can safely flee the country with my family in case of emergency.

Same goes for the Saudi King.  Just because I govern a shitty country filled to the brim with radicals where banks are not allowed to pay interests does not mean I want to keep my money there