Stop Turning Your Yard into a Hellscape for Halloween

[Brad Johnson]

Brad, I don't think for a moment that you (or any of the other defenders of Halloween Freedom here) believe that everything you dislike (for good reasons, I'm sure!) should be prohibited by the government.  Is it possible that someone else might ... just possibly ... have the same complexity?

I don't believe in universal prohibition, nor do I believe anyone else here does, and I certainly hope she continues to have the same freedom to express her opinion. I just tire of the never-ending litany of "Well let me tell you about THIS!!" non-issues when there are so much more important things in life to consider.

Brad

[Ben]

Final two paragraphs of the article, direct copy-&-paste.



Summary: "I don't want bureaucrats policing yard decorations but here's all the reasons yard decorations should be policed!"

Brad

I carry concealed.  I think there are a lot of really good reasons to carry concealed.  I advocate carrying concealed.  It irritates me when people pull stupid stunts like open carry rifles into Applebees or struts into a Walmart with an AR right after someone shoots up a Walmart with an AR.  People doing that are doing harm to the gun rights cause.

I absolutely don't want there to be laws against open carry.

I read the two quoted article paragraphs in Brad's post to mean that the author had similar thoughts to what Cordex said above. It seemed to me it was more about her asking people to have some common sense specifically so the government doesn't step in. For instance, not wearing your Firefly duster while carrying your M4gery into the Washington state capitol building so that WA state doesn't prohibiting carry in the building. Oops - too late.

It wasn't about her forcing her mores on anyone, it was a warning that pushing boundaries often results in government intervention, to a negative effect for everyone, since default gov is lowest common denominator. They won't ban gross Halloween decorations, or scary Halloween decorations. They'll simply ban all Halloween decorations.

[charby]

They won't ban gross Halloween decorations, or scary Halloween decorations. They'll simply ban all Halloween decorations.

I'll play my ancient Celt card, Samhaim predates Christianity by a few years. All good in the SJW world.

[Perd Hapley]

Pot/Kettle?

Um, I'm pretty sure I can point out name-calling without running for my safe space.

It's pretty clear which side is getting overwrought here. (Hint: it's those getting all wee-weed up, and threatening to take their Starbucks to church on Sunday.)

[Perd Hapley]

I just tire of the never-ending litany of "Well let me tell you about THIS!!" non-issues when there are so much more important things in life to consider.

Obviously not, or you'd be commenting on something more important.

Get used to the Information Age. Bandwidth is nearly unlimited these days. There's always demand for more content, especially content no one else is tackling. So you may as well get used to people writing about things you claim you don't care about.

[Perd Hapley]

Those founder guys were predominantly Deists.  Not Christians, per se.  And mostly they said "*expletive deleted*ck off and leave us alone, or else."

Not that old myth again. I won't belabor the point with a lot of pious quotes from Founding Fathers. They were politicians, so I take such things with a grain of salt. Most of them weren't out there alienating the base by professing unorthodox religious ideas.

[charby]

Um, I'm pretty sure I can point out name-calling without running for my safe space.

It's pretty clear which side is getting overwrought here. (Hint: it's those getting all wee-weed up, and threatening to take their Starbucks to church on Sunday.)

Whatever, St. Karen.

[Perd Hapley]

I was thinking the same thing. I'm actually surprised that there aren't more religious neighborhood build around their churches, with an HOA that aligns with that particular church. Then they can just point their fingers at each other.

1. Pullman didn't cite a religious objection, but it's telling how much of common sense only religious people (supposedly) can grasp these days. According to popular lore, if you understand that humans come in two genders, each of which tends to have characteristic traits, and appropriate roles, you must be on that religious stuff. We used to refer to that as common sense, because it is. According to lore, if you don't want your taxes to pay for babies being killed and parted out, you must be one of those religious types. Now, if you think people should have the decency not to put R-rated gore out where 4-year-olds can see it on their way to school, you're a cranky, religious Karen type.

It wouldn't occur to me to think all non-believers are that ignorant, or thoughtless, or cruel, but this is what non-believers keep saying. They keep saying that common sense and decency is only for those religious types.

2. Why are normal people (like Joy Pullman and "Karen") supposed to ghetto-ize themselves? How about people who insist on extreme Halloween decorations keep their stuff private, or start their own neighborhoods?

Or you could take Pullman's route, and just make a plea for some consideration of small children. Which one of these solutions seems most sensible to you?

3. There actually is a movement among (some) Christians to do something like the Christian HOA idea. This may or may not be the intent of "The Benedict Option."

https://www.crosswalk.com/culture/books/the-benedict-option-what-is-it.html

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/benedict-option-faq/

Of course, if Christians do that, you'll call them cultists, or timid, snowflake Karens, or accuse them of polygamy or pederasty, or some such. Or at least, the popular culture certainly will. It will be the home-school movement on steroids.

[charby]

1. Pullman didn't cite a religious objection, but it's telling how much of common sense only religious people (supposedly) can grasp these days. According to popular lore, if you understand that humans come in two genders, each of which tends to have characteristic traits, and appropriate roles, you must be on that religious stuff. We used to refer to that as common sense, because it is. According to lore, if you don't want your taxes to pay for babies being killed and parted out, you must be one of those religious types. Now, if you think people should have the decency not to put R-rated gore out where 4-year-olds can see it on their way to school, you're a cranky, religious Karen type.

It wouldn't occur to me to think all non-believers are that ignorant, or thoughtless, or cruel, but this is what non-believers keep saying. They keep saying that common sense and decency is only for those religious types.

2. Why are normal people (like Joy Pullman and "Karen") supposed to ghetto-ize themselves? How about people who insist on extreme Halloween decorations keep their stuff private, or start their own neighborhoods?

Or you could take Pullman's route, and just make a plea for some consideration of small children. Which one of these solutions seems most sensible to you?

3. There actually is a movement among (some) Christians to do something like the Christian HOA idea. This may or may not be the intent of "The Benedict Option."

https://www.crosswalk.com/culture/books/the-benedict-option-what-is-it.html

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/benedict-option-faq/

Of course, if Christians do that, you'll call them cultists, or timid, snowflake Karens, or accuse them of polygamy or pederasty, or some such. Or at least, the popular culture certainly will. It will be the home-school movement on steroids.

Ghetto is a stretch on defining self built religious neighborhood.

If you erected a cross in your front yard and your community took offense to it, I would be on your team in defending your rights to having a cross in your front yard. Could you say the same about something that might offend a parent of a four year old?

[brimic]

I grew up across the street from a cemetery, every night was like halloween. Maybe we should ban those, for the children.

[dogmush]

Really?
Jamis simultaneously admitted he knew she wasn't calling for regulation but went right ahead with expressing concern that disapproval of something was going to lead to sharia law or something and calls her a statist.
Dogmush brought up the false dichotomy that the only options are to either send men with guns to enforce our whim or to accept whatever people want to do, while dismissing her statement that she didn't want to use government force because he doesn't believe there is any possible way to interact with people you disagree with other than government force or acceptance.
Brad focused right in on "legal ways to enforce your views on your neighbor" bravely stated he would not advocate restricting people's rights to display halloween decorations.
AZRedhawk44 is AZRedhawk44.

Look, it's entirely possible this lady is secretly a statist thug trying to push for a theocracy in America.  I don't know her and prior to this I don't think I've ever read anything by her.  But what I'm seeing here are a number of people saying "I know she said X but what she really meant was Y and that's why I disagree with her."

Not really what I said there, Ace.  Might want to reread some of this thread.  I personally believe there's plenty of other ways to interact with my neighbors.  I even use a couple of them.  I said that there's not, currently in america, an effective way to compel a person to change their behavior outside of governmental force.

[cordex]

Not really what I said there, Ace.  Might want to reread some of this thread.  I personally believe there's plenty of other ways to interact with my neighbors.  I even use a couple of them.  I said that there's not, currently in america, an effective way to compel a person to change their behavior outside of governmental force.

Yes and?  Compulsion requires force by definition.  If the author explicitly decries government compulsion (and presumably wasn’t advocating vigilante enforcement), and if there are other means of changing people’s behavior ranging from discussion to disapproval to local social norms then where does compulsion enter the discussion?

[Perd Hapley]

Ghetto is a stretch on defining self built religious neighborhood.

If you erected a cross in your front yard and your community took offense to it, I would be on your team in defending your rights to having a cross in your front yard. Could you say the same about something that might offend a parent of a four year old?

I don't know that anyone's said you don't have a right to put offensively gory Halloween displays in your yard. You also have a right to use foul language in front of children. Joy Pullman was just asking for some restraint.

And "ghetto" is not a stretch, when outsiders are suggesting that another group might be better off living in their own communities.

[charby]

I don't know that anyone's said you don't have a right to put offensively gory Halloween displays in your yard. You also have a right to use foul language in front of children. Joy Pullman was just asking for some restraint.

And "ghetto" is not a stretch, when outsiders are suggesting that another group might be better off living in their own communities.

So Amish live in a ghetto?

[griz]

Is white cornmeal acceptable?     Nicely done with the amount of sugar; purists will be pissed that it has any sugar, Yankees won't think it's sweet enough.

That's the kind of talk that leads to government regulation of cornbread! 

Please don't take this post seriously, I was just trying to keep the dead horse properly whipped.

[Brad Johnson]

That's the kind of talk that leads to government regulation of cornbread! 

They'll pry my sifter from my cold, dead hands...

Brad

[TechMan]