Recent posts by TheBSG on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

A summary of BigUglyOrc’s values as gleaned from this discussion:

1. My Privilege.

A. White Language is Sacred and Authoritative.

B. I prefer not learning how other people prefer things and am in the majority so my preferences are louder and thus right.

C. Systems are awesome, but specifically my systems that I choose and fail to qualify beyond referring constantly to authority.

D. False utilitarian ideals that are actually extremely exclusive and rigid.

[Can we take a moment to appreciate how presumptuous I’m being that you’re white, male, and almost necessarily living in America? I could be wrong, but I’ll bet I’m not.]

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ebola

Ebola is on the news because it’s midterm election season. The flu is airborne and kills 36,000 times as many people in the US and is incurable. Journalism is dead. Thread’s over.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

By the way, I’m a big arrogant asshole. There I said it so you don’t have to.

Really, I just know things about actual communication theory and how language evolves to address the needs of a culture, that prescriptive language is the origin of a lot of bad thinking and logic, and that people who use prescriptive language are especially easy to refute in court, be it legal, or the court of the social scene where common sense rules.

Shit, usually I’m the one defending people’s practical use of language even if it accidentally offends others, but you literally have responded to scenarios in which communication is the thing that happens between two people who’s understanding of identity are different, and you still choose to prescribe your understanding of language to others, not because you’ll admit it makes you comfortable, but you actually think that you’re fighting the very thing you’re doing to others with your logic. It’s actually profoundly ironic when I laid it out on paper after re-reading this thread.

So honestly, I’m not trying to pick on you, I am just kind of tired of the merry go rounds on this site and I’m done coddling people, especially people who show the capacity to actually hold challenging and insightful discussions about identity and language but instead choose to pick low hanging fruit.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Since I’m a big meanie, I reread this thread to decide what I should apologize for, and recognized that you barely addressed any of my points and chose to argue with people you know are long winded so you can make a pissing match out of context stripped quotes in response to some other dumb shit you said 3 posts previous. You’re clearly intelligent enough to make a concise point, but you engage in shit that makes you feel smarter instead of actually challenging your own thinking. We’re not even breaching a philosophically fruitful conversation, I’m just spending energy explaining to you that your interpretation of what language is for and how it proliferates is unrealistic and idealistic, and only really means you either have discomfort and lack of understanding for people with different identities than yourself, or you’re just so happy to hear yourself talk that you are arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

[If you disagree with this last paragraph, good I kind of assumed you would. Don’t quote parts of it and make an argument out of this part, I’m not going to negotiate my opinion of your shitty argument style. Pay attention to the second half of this post where I strawman your beliefs in a fruitless effort to show you how obtuse and prescriptive your definition of language is and how it hurts people and not communication at all.]

Let me amend my first post to reflect the closest thing you’ve done to justifying why your aspergers interpretation of language as a system of communication that cannot maintain coherency without strict, dictated rules isn’t either a real actual thing or that it should ever be enforced like a law as you’ve expressed it:

New Person: “Hi my name is Larry.”
BigAss replies: “Let me see your ID.”
Larry seems confused: “Uh… why?”
BigAss hamfists the strangers’ wallet from his pocket, discovers that Larry’s legal name is ‘Ashley.’ and lets out a glorious and triumphant squee. “I will call you Ashley!”
Larry sighs “I shouldn’t have to explain this to anyone in order to get a basic level of respect, but my Father’s name is Ashley, and he was abusive, so I go by my uncle’s first name, a man who took care of me my whole life. I don’t have the money to change it right now, and it’s kind of a sensitive topic, so changing it is even hard. So I just prefer people call me Larry.”

BigAss hopefully goes home and rethinks his obsessive application of identity to others as if it holds together the fabric of society when in fact he’s just a dick.

In case you can’t follow my thinking, I’ll extrapolate it for you.

Alex: “They don’t really identify as a gender, and would prefer you didn’t call them a she.”
BigAssTheRobot: “THE ONLY REASON WE USE GENDER PRONOUNS IS TO IDENTIFY EACHOTHERS GENITAL PARTS. WHAT IS SAID INDIVIDUAL’S BIRTH SEX!? ENGLISH WAS MADE WHOLECLOTH BY PERFECT WHITE PEOPLE AND ITS INADEQUACY TO ADDRESS MODERN VALUES AND CONCEPTS MEANS THOSE CONCEPTS ARE WRONG AND NOT LANGUAGE. I AM A ROBOT. I HAVE NO EMPATHY. THE MINUTE OF AWKWARDNESS TO FIGURE OUT THAT SOMEONE WITH A DIFFERENTLY GENDERED NAME DOESN’T GO BY THAT NAME’S TRADITIONAL PRONOUN, OR TO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT SOMEONE’S REFERENCE TO A PERSON’S GENERALIZED PRONOUN WASN’T IN REFERENCE TO A GROUP OF PEOPLE WILL CORRUPT MY SYSTEM OF PRIVILEGE!”

I mean, how do you think we got any words at all to begin with? I acknowledged these are strawmen points, so if you quote me a bunch and try to pick this shit apart, you didn’t get the overall point of my post. Address it as a whole thing, not as parts. If I’m wrong, it should be easy to sidestep and clarify that you’re not this caricature. But I’m not wrong, you haven’t made any coherent argument besides this one so you’ll bear down, say you’re not saying this, and then repeat yourself.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is my being a white, cisgender, heterosexual male a bad thing?

Originally posted by dd790:
Originally posted by jaytotheareokay:
Originally posted by TheBSG:

You can either accept your privilege or not. Either way you still have it. Considering you’re butthurt over lacking something to be oppressed over that you’re calling people’s despising your privilege a form of oppression itself, I think you’re going to be just fine. If that’s the worst you have to deal with, be thankful. Spend one day shopping with a black friend and then stop talking. Exit the house as a female and experience the sexual entitlement. Be something other than a white straight male once it’s dark out. Because you can’t, you’ll never know the experiences of others. That’s the whole thing people are upset with you about: Instead of acknowledging that you don’t know and regularly contribute to those people’s experiences, you complain about what little inconvenience your privilege causes you.

As a white cisgendered male, you are being a bigot here. I have a number of racial and sexual minority friends, and we all get along very well. Everyone has fun together and race, sexuality, and gender I.D. rarely come up. Most of usgrew up poor, in the Midwest. I never went to college, but I got a job as a machinist and worked hard for everything I own. You saying that all white people are privileged, and that its okay to be angry at a group for the actions of some of their ancestors is very insensitive of you. Btw my ancestors are largely Norwegian and Amish, mostly arriving in America after the civil war. Everyone has different life experiences, so judging someone based on what they look like is wrong no matter what.

No you don’t, haven’t you been listening? White people and black people cannot be friends because whites simply cannot comprehend what it means to be black, same way heterosexual people and homosexual people cannot get along because they are so different. There are huge differences between races and sexualities and you are being a racist/sexist by trying to befriend them and pretend to understand them.

Just trying to predict the reply if it’s anything like what you quoted

Because trying to point out the fact that privilege is a thing means you can’t have black friends? What? Did this post make you feel smart or am I just failing at reading comprehension?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Wait, how am I still arguing in this thread without having posted?

On topic: The pedantic bullshit this guy puts people through just so he can defend the sanctity of language is ironic. Because language doesn’t describe culture and ideas, it dictates them! Those crazy gender bending queerfags better get with the program and make their genders fit a language invented thousands of years ago or they don’t exists and/or language is broken irreparably and the fabric of society will come unspun.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

White privileged people have lots of opinions about things that don’t effect them at all. Call people by the pronouns they ask you to and get the fuck over yourself. “But that person-” shut up. “What if I want to” shut up. “It isn’t fair that…” Shut. The. Hell. Up. You’re the one who’s being unreasonable. Someone asked you to respect them, showed you how, and you didn’t want to because of the sanctity of grammar. You know the tool for communication, not ascribing authority? I’m far from the most politically correct person, but there’s a difference between sweeping edicts that are decided by special interest groups and someone just telling you how they’d prefer you refer to them. “My name is Adam.” “Nah, I’m going to call you Larry.” “Why?” "Because I have some deep convictions about words that supersede your’s, and I’m the “normal” one between us."

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should women serve in the military?

Originally posted by Sharangir:

Who cares if they perform better or worse, just accept the ones that apply and meet the requirements. Anything else just seems to me to be irrational hatred towards women.

This was the conclusion I ended up drawing after my original beliefs were challenged in that thread and I did more research on what some of the most effective and non-political generals have expressed, including female generals. I enjoy the thread Karma quoted as it’s a wonderful example of my willingness to grow when my beliefs are adequately challenged.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Kongregate Serious Discussion Meetup September 2014

Sorry I couldn’t make it, my mom wouldn’t bring me because she had to shave my back instead. I heard Vika got drunk and tried to prove we live in a simulation while standing on a table in the MLP fursuit Karma brought?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Part of gender and sexual dysphoria comes from our confusion between expressed sexual traits and social sexual traits. What we associate with femininity and masculinity is not always a physical, innate thing, but is more often than not a fabrication of a contemporary society. Our modern concepts of personal and social identity aren’t very articulate yet, and I think if people got over terms and actually thought about many of these concepts, they’d recognize them as pretty obvious. I think most of us are forced into roles in society that we eventually mold ourselves into, where other roles we seem to fit instantly without having to learn very much about that role at all. The issues come from society dictating those roles in such harsh ways that people aren’t allowed to fulfill the identity roles they feel most in tune with at that point in their life. Allowing people to explore, grow, change, and understand their identities is part of a healthy society, and it extends to things far beyond gender and sexuality, too.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / An interpretation of God

Originally posted by vikaTae:

BSG and I hacked this discussion to mutual understanding quite a while back. S’why he hasn’t replied to me either. We both know where we stand, and there’s a lot of overlap in our views.

The main difference is he’s not trying to create a god. Where as I… ahem :)

The discussion (or at least its apex) Vika is referring to.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / An interpretation of God

I find Deism baffling. It’s more begging the question than animist theology, even. What question does the deistic god answer that is pressing about the universe? If the universe looks the same with or without a deistic god, claiming one exists seems unrelated and random.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Monty Hall problem.

Originally posted by tjmoncek:

If you oppose my argument, please hear me out first. I understand the explanation, but I also understand that it is incorrect. You only ever had a 2/3 chance of having a goat when there were 2 goats to have and 3 doors to have them. But after a door is opened, there is 1 goat to have and only 2 doors that may have them. As to the diagram, that is considering games that we know didn’t happen. Look only at the games where the 2nd door was opened. It is 1/2, right? So if you play a game in which that door is opened, your chances are 1/2. That applies to the other door as well.

You’re forgetting your initial choice, in which 1 out of 3 times, you will have selected the car. This means that if you do not switch, you still have a 33% chance of being right. Switching then means that, 2 out of 3 times, you initially selected a goat and will now be switching to a car. At no point do you ever have a 50/50 shot at anything.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / #Yesallwomen Thoughts?

A lot of feminists who legitimately feel the situation is hopeless develop a misguided adversarial solution. Targeting these beliefs as feminism is easy and convenient for moderates who don’t know how to address upset people or their own implication in a culture that complicates things so simple as playground sports.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / #Yesallwomen Thoughts?

I literally didn’t have any faith in this thread, thank you Jan for totally getting it. I too think YesAllWomen is reactive, but holy shit it didn’t have enough legitimacy already to be disagreed with.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / #Yesallwomen Thoughts?

What specific leaders of what feminist party think that? There’s a secret underlying motive to cause all feminists to think men are inherit rapists, but there’s not underlying cultural tenancies against women even though those are scientifically measurable? You read a lot of feminist literature to where you can seriously judge the arguments of several feminist generations along with sociologists reports about our treatment of women, but you’re not ready to talk about the culture of masculinity that you and I both grew up in without any shadow of a doubt? So you want to fight against rapists, but you don’t want to talk about what causes rapists to act the way they do? You admit men’s sexuality is warped and twisted but don’t acknowledge the patriarchy that adheres to that sick sense of entitlement? I just don’t know what part of a cultural problem you don’t believe in.

I have to stop thinking about it and mute that part of my head when I’m in public so either you live ignorantly, or in a wonderfully gender equal world where women feel comfortable and you and everyone around you treats women and sexuality with healthy attitudes. Otherwise you participate in a culture that tacitly endorses and apologizes for rape. What specifically about that do you deny? You keep comparing it to other cultures you don’t endorse, but those AREN’T systemic problems you’re liable to be part of. I am entirely a feminist who is deep into the culture and politics, and often have to argue with other feminists about moderacy and true equality, I still find myself participating in rape culture without realizing it until later, until I check myself, or someone else does. I wish I had an adequate example that isn’t arguable, but that isn’t really the point.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / #Yesallwomen Thoughts?

That post was supposed to be your first time clarifying between radical and inter-sectional feminism, and you still confused a very specific point of contention in the feminist community about portraying all men as natural rapists as the opinion of the whole. You are also taking a point of contention you have with particular people (none of which are in this thread) that equate feminism with hating or blaming all men. You mistake my claiming all men, and women are implicated as saying you actively participate in rape culture, when the truth is that you passively contribute to it both by mitigating it, and in ways you probably don’t recognize. You also claim feminism is about victimizing women, a problem neofeminism brought up in response to 3rd wave feminism’s accusations against other women. You think the concept of patriarchy and rape culture means MEN suck and everyone thinks we should rape vulnerable women? Patriarchy hurts men and women, idealizes male concepts over female, and is perpetuated by anyone in society who isn’t actively aware of and fighting it. All genders and sexuality. Everyone. Period.

I mean, you recognize why I made the point about racist language earlier, right? You KNOW perfectly nice and normal non-racist white people still say racist shit all the time. My friend’s Mother, with all of the best intentions, said “It’s so good to see someone from your heritage with a job!” to our black friend, and it was awkward as fuck. It doesn’t even need to be that overt though, and I hope I don’t need to convince you of this point, you totally know exactly what I’m talking about. White people by their very inability to identify with black peoples’ experience make ignorant statements about black people that disenfranchises them. THE DIFFERENCE is that the language we use about black people has dramatically improved, and how those words are used have transformed entirely. There are places that DON’T passively use racially destructive (not just politically incorrect) terms. The way we treat females however has NOT changed. I don’t know how to say this any more clearly. Look it up. There’s all kinds of studies from different angles that show our passive ideas about women are still dark ages thinking. You don’t need to agree with that to participate in it.

I think you’re uninformed mostly, and the part where we really disagree is where you’re denying your daily experiences of sexism and disenfranchisement of women. You focus on either your perception of a feminists’ values as being radical, or the opinions of an angry person who is lashing out at you likely because you’re displaying the same ignorance you’re displaying here, and applying that to everything. Your anecdotal evidence and mine don’t equate with eachother at all, and my anecdotal evidence happens to be backed up by what’s discovered when we look at numbers, analyze media, and make any real substantial measurements.

So lose the stigma with the terms rape culture and patriarchy, stop being defensive, and help solve the very real and systemic problem that positions male sexuality as possessive, domineering, and uncontrollable. Let’s acknowledge that we were raised by fathers who were raised by fathers who thought about females a certain way, and that our society is set up and our maleness was designed around these ideas, and that we might participate in the problem without intending to, and to be open and aware of that possibility when interacting with women. Other women must learn to stop feeling as though they need to compete with other women on a level of beauty and attractiveness to men, and instead help everyone understand that competing with our own expectations and desires for ourselves is far more healthy. Then willing roles of subordination or authority are perfectly healthy and natural in a relationship. Currently, they’re not, and it’s not just an opinion.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / #Yesallwomen Thoughts?

Okay, Rape Culture include everyone but Kasic, can we move on with stopping it instead of avoiding feeling implicated like that’s the most important part? The whole concept behind convincing you it’s a rape culture is BECAUSE you keep saying it isn’t one. You’re trying to isolate a societal, systemic, embedded thinking and declare it a minority, a small subsection. Because you don’t overtly, directly, tacitly endorse it, you feel entirely absolved. That’s the most innocuous and prevalent aspect of rape culture in itself. Mitigating the problem that ALL WOMEN experience, whether it’s caused by what they perceive as all men or other women, is contributing to rape culture. You’re doing that. Saying there’s problems but you don’t participate and most of the people you know think rape is wrong is participating.

I find it interesting that you mention us not having a crime culture when we very much do in the united states, but it tends to be limited, not more prevalent, in isolated areas. Meanwhile language AGAINST women (not just differences in speaking to different groups like you so casually disregarded) is ubiquitous and problematic in almost every first world country. We have a gun culture in our country that’s highly polarized, with locations determining the severity in opinion with little moderation. Meanwhile rape culture has no island of hope or group of people who aren’t causing the problem.

Everyone. Is. Implicated.

It’s in our culture. Girl gets raped and our national television stations attempt to question her motive for being at the party and how this will all impact her rapists. News stations apologize and proceed to continue victim blaming in an attempt not to. Not a single, one, unitary reporter besides a gay female (meanwhile a gay male reporter also failed) anchor paid proper respect to a rape victim. If every single national brand with all of the resources in the world can’t figure out how to report an underage rape case without directly endorsing the act, our culture struggles with its gender roles, and it doesn’t take active sexism or the frontal lobe belief that “rape is awesome” for you to be part of it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / #Yesallwomen Thoughts?

Can we just take a second to appreciate how, in response to #Yes*AllWomen*, this thread and the internet in general, has responded “Why do feminists lump me and all men into the same category!? EVERYONE knows not to do those things.” The hash tag is ALL WOMEN. If you don’t see rape culture in the defensiveness and talking past the point in this minor dispute itself, I can see why a person wouldn’t recognize rape culture on a systemic level either. If your immediate reaction to the issue is to tout your innocence, you sure make it hard to trust your judgement in regards to others.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / #Yesallwomen Thoughts?

It’s not a minority. If actual committed rape is your measurement for rape culture’s pervasiveness, you’re not listening. Let’s all of us men in this discussion share how we find women attractive, how we’ve handled rejection, in what ways we make advances. Let’s as a group discuss in ways we’ve seen close friends behave, let’s discuss an average conversation about women and identify some of the language choices made in that discussion. It turns out, when we do this kind of analysis of media and the social dialogue we’re all having, that language treats women distinctly from men, and in reference to them. What’s more, these indicators are higher in places with more spousal abuse and incidents of rape. Go now and look up the whole thing, starting with the rape culture wiki. It isn’t a conspiracy, it’s identifying a masculinity in our global society that disenfranchises, controls, and trivializes women’s rights and issues. Until you do the same research I have, worked in the same environments, and then addressed your culture with those experiences, I’m really not going to accept “I don’t see hear or experience it so I am not implicated at all!” That’s some profoundly daft awareness.

Edit: It’s funny, in many places, we’ve actually seen language in regards to black people change over the years. There’s absolutely still Racism in America, but there’s places where people don’t even have inherited passive racism in their language anymore. This simply cannot be said about our treatment of women, and I wish you’d recognize that this is more than political correctness we’re talking about. There’s a systemic way of thinking in regards to women, and it pervades our globe. Luckily this (probably evolutionarily advantageous) social paradigm isn’t the only functional system, even if it has been for much of human history. Matriarchal societies have existed, but more importantly, there are many examples of traditionally equal gender roles in many parts of the world that prove there is stability in a less gender binary world. We achieve that by acknowledging ours is not harmonious at all.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / #Yesallwomen Thoughts?

Unsurprisingly from Tumblr but correct nonetheless:
The main problem I have with Men’s Rights Activists is that their name really doesn’t do them justice. They’re Straight Cis White Men’s Rights Activists. I have NEVER seen Men’s Rights Activists campaign for the inclusion of trans* men in their spaces.

I have NEVER seen Men’s Rights Activists campaign to end the social stigma around black fatherhood. I have NEVER seen Men’s Rights Activists campaign for better pay and equal career mobility for men of colour. I have NEVER seen Men’s Rights Activists actively campaign for more gay men’s rights. I have NEVER seen Men’s Rights Activists advise others in their group on how using faggot to emasculate men who aren’t part of their cause is alienating and marginalising other MEN.

I have NEVER seen Men’s Rights Activists campaign, raise awareness of, or support victims of male rape unless it’s in order to derail a discussion around female victims of rape. I have NEVER seen Men’s Rights Activists campaign, raise awareness of, or support male victims of domestic abuse unless it’s in order to derail a discussion around female victims of domestic abuse. Men’s Rights Activists are hypocrites and frauds.

They’re bitter privileged white men who don’t want to campaign for the rights of men — they want to campaign to keep their privilege unchecked and their ability to discriminate against others. If you want to be a real Men’s Rights Activist — be a fucking (intersectional) Feminist. Peace out.

Women contribute to rape culture too. Men are forced into hyper masculine roles where their ability to dominate and control women is tied to their power, and men suffer from this paradigm as well, just in less obvious ways. That isn’t something that should be in contrast or comparison to feminism. Misandry is the term, but the actual sociological concept of feminism includes many of the issues of technical misandry, and the actual use of the term is often intended to portray another side of the coin to rape culture and the disenfranchisement of women. There isn’t another side to that. It’s all the same problem.

#Yesallwomen is important in getting it through to men that this is part of our culture, that we’re all implicated. That we all do things daily that disintegrates women in celebration of “manhood.” Denying a system because you don’t feel like you participate is problematic. Feminists who are fed up with people’s rationalizations and ignorance of the very real problem, who are faced with daily catcalls, advances, and expectations may react negatively to your not recognizing their very real struggle. That doesn’t make their plight incorrect if their reaction feels unfair to you. Recognize where that comes from.

Karma has said much of what needs to be said to some of the posts in this thread.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by sportsmaster19:

Why are the mods concerned with removing posts but not doing something about crow? He is such an obvious troll that it is ridiculous, his diction is too strong to be saying things as fallacious as these last two posts.

Technically, they are still legitimate points, just said in such a way that they imply an opinion that is completely opposite to what was actually said.

And he’s actually pretty good at pointing out flaws of both sides by using sarcasm.
Sure, it is trolling, but it’s a style I like to call constructive trolling.

Unfortunately, I have to agree.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / 9/11

While absolutely tragic, and one of the only international attacks on US soil, I found and still find the United States’ reaction to the attack on 9/11 to be rather ignorant of how even the UK experiences extremist violence like this regularly. At the time I validated the violent reaction of the government much more than I do now, seeing it as naive on the part of some, and opportunistic in terms of corporations and our leadership. The true damage and results of those attacks ended up limiting the freedoms and economic stability of our country, as it was originally designed to do. The only goal that was not achieved is the limiting of the US’ involvement with foreign countries, but that’s our own damn governments fault for continuing to spend our resources fixing other peoples’ problems willy-nilly. I’m no isolationist, but I think everyone would get a little more conservative with US money if they really knew where it goes.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

What I meant is that it’s a misnomer to imply that your experience makes voter fraud as easy as it would’ve been for you. Also, if your lazy roommates weren’t registered to vote, you couldn’t vote for them. You’d actually have to get them to not care who you vote for, while caring enough to make it easy for you to vote for them, which is the same as if they’d gone in and voted for whoever you told them to anyway. The effective results isn’t the same. Furthermore, the incentive isn’t there for voters to commit this kind of fraud due to the high risk and low payoffs, while buying votes and fudging elections after the fact is far more cost effective and just plain effective.

This is so off topic, we should make a new thread but let’s not because I hate arguing voter ID bullshit. It’s not worth disenfranchising several thousand voters to prevent what is statistically infinitesimal, meanwhile both parties shilk all attempts to curb voting fraud.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

But that’s a misnomer. You’d have to have knowledge of who has registered to vote but will not vote, and a single mistake would reveal your actions. This knowledge would essentially be all of the knowledge someone who was going to vote anyway would have, so the effectiveness of voter fraud is infinitesimal. It is instead far easier to miscount, disqualify, or assign votes after the fact, making voting fraud far more effective and undetectable.