Ionathus's Random Banter #249 -- Directionless Rambling Is Now Mandatory

[Rater202]

I knew a guy who was 10000% for real actually in a Kismiss with his wife of like 10 years and it was mutual on her end and they were both some of the most adjusted people I've ever seen despite everything this implies.

*looks expectantly from over the edge of my book*

...So there are two ways to take that statement.

[TaiLiu]

Oh ok. So what is your plan if you're not using the card?

I dunno yet. Would you recommend any non-coffee drinks from Starbucks? Maybe I'll stop by and get a juice or something.

Well, it is a arcade bar, so it's not JUST an arcade. It's also a bar, which is probably part of what helps it live.

That makes sense. You get drunk and then, instead of throwing sharp things at a board, you mash some buttons instead. Probably way more fun.

They're definitely having a (niche) resurgence in my area. It's an obvious appeal to millennials and Gen Zs, who now have disposable income and want to relive the arcade experience -- but now, while drinking overpriced IPAs! Basically any larger city in the U.S. is gonna have at least a few.

It's not just retro games, either -- there are some recently-created arcade games like Killer Queen and DeathBall. DeathBall is actually a LOT of fun: fast, two-player goofy fun. I highly recommend playing it if you ever get the chance!

Killer Queen is good too, but it's a behemoth of a game and you need 10 relatively-evenly-matched players to make it really work. One person who's too good can really ruin the fun.

A marid in the campaign I'm running refers to all humanoid institutions, collectively, as "sandcastles."

As in, "oh, that's right, you were headed back to that little sandcastle up the coast!" (referring to Waterdeep).

He's not a jerk -- he's quite friendly, in fact. He just thinks of humanoid accomplishments like you or I would think of...well, a toddler's sandcastle. Good work, kiddo, but don't get too attached...the ocean always wins...

Oh cool! I didn't know that. Didn't know that arcade games were still being made, too.

That's great. The sea will claim everything.

Well. I see you like to live dangerously.

Yep (oddly enough, the other islands also have men, though)! Wales and the Channel Islands are a myth, never the less. No such places.

United Kingdom

UNITED Kingdom

Let's just reconsider that, shan't we?

So what you two are saying is that I should never talk about the UK, cuz if I do I'm gonna get punched one day.

I knew a guy who was 10000% for real actually in a Kismiss with his wife of like 10 years and it was mutual on her end and they were both some of the most adjusted people I've ever seen despite everything this implies.

I wonder why they married. I feel like being enemies with benefits would work much better.

[Form]

that's great. The sea will claim everything.

NOT IF MY PEOPLE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT!

on your planet, draining your oceans

[Peelee]

I dunno yet. Would you recommend any non-coffee drinks from Starbucks? Maybe I'll stop by and get a juice or something.

I like the strawberry acai lemonade. Don't go to often (i never drink coffee), but they have good fast food breakfast sandwiches - that's the drink I get off I grab breakfast from them.

So what you two are saying is that I should never talk about the UK, cuz if I do I'm gonna get punched one day.

Well, probably just the Irish. I'm going to very be very short here to keep things apolitical, but there's a joke that the greatest British achievement in understating things was the name "The Troubles".

NOT IF MY PEOPLE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT!

I'll admit, your absolute resolution to defy the Gulf of Holland is impressive. In the next hundred years or two, Dutch technological advances may yet save us all.

[LaZodiac]

I wonder why they married. I feel like being enemies with benefits would work much better.

I mean, because they loved each other. Their love was just a burning hatred for each other that made them never want to exist without the other. Also married people get special benefits in many situations.

[Rater202]

I mean, because they loved each other. Their love was just a burning hatred for each other that made them never want to exist without the other. Also married people get special benefits in many situations.

Most of which either shouldn't be linked behind a marriage(being able to visit your partner in a hospital) aren't locked behind marriage(being able to handle someone else's affairs) or shouldn't exist at all(spousal privilege is all kinds of bull**** when you think about it.)

[Ionathus]

Also married people get special benefits in many situations.

Another really compellingly done "toxic" marriage in my mind was one in Better Call Saul:

Spoiler

Show

Jimmy and Kim. I like how Kim's suggestion of marriage is so that she never has to testify against Jimmy for his misdeeds...but she's not leaving. His illegal activity isn't a deal-breaker for her, but she doesn't propose marriage out of love (though they do clearly care about each other quite a lot), but rather out of practicality.

And in the last season, we finally see her other reasoning: she likes it. She enjoys the thrill of a con and she and Jimmy feed off each other. It's a terrible dynamic that they both enjoy quite a bit...until things finally go completely sideways with Howard.

[Bohandas]

Most of which either shouldn't be linked behind a marriage(being able to visit your partner in a hospital) aren't locked behind marriage(being able to handle someone else's affairs) or shouldn't exist at all(spousal privilege is all kinds of bull**** when you think about it.)

Agreed 100%. The institution should be retired and its various legal effects seperated into distinct entities.

There's simply no reason for it to exist

[Keltest]

Agreed 100%. The institution should be retired and its various legal effects seperated into distinct entities.

To what end? If you're keeping the legal entities you've just made it more complicated.

[Rater202]

Abolishing marriage itself is a bit too far, but... In this day and age, marriage is just a piece of paper and maybe a fancy party.

Detaching some of the legal stuff that's gated behind it, either by removing it or else giving valid non-marriage ways to get it, would be a social good.

[Bohandas]

To what end? If you're keeping the legal entities you've just made it more complicated.

I mean they wouldn't be all bundled together.

[Anonymouswizard]

Honestly I can see an argument for separating the legal aspects of marriage from the other elements of it. In fact it's been my preferred solution for a while, although not everybody agrees with my.

...okay my actual preferred solution is a lot more radical, but it would also piss off far too many people to be worth it. My last serious attempt at a fantasy setting had poly marriages as standard, although admittedly it was explicitly in a secluded corner of a larger world

[Keltest]

I mean they wouldn't be all bundled together.

I understood that, yes. My criticism stands.

[Bohandas]

Honestly I can see an argument for separating the legal aspects of marriage from the other elements of it.

and from each other

EDIT:
and only to he extent that they are needed at all

[Anonymouswizard]

and from each other

So what you're saying is, the marriage family should get a divorce?

[Rater202]

So, my cousin's kid's first IEP meeting happened today.

He's been previously diagnosed with autism, but today his teachers—not psychiatrists, teachers, insisted that he also has ADHD and oppositional defiant disorder and wanted him medicated ASAP.

The kid is four. People who lack the qualifications to make this judgment want to put a four-year-old on what are essentially controlled doses of hard drugs because he won't sit still in a way that's convenient for them.

[Peelee]

(spousal privilege is all kinds of bull**** when you think about it.)

Actually, thinking about it makes it not all kinds of bull****.

Another really compellingly done "toxic" marriage in my mind was one in Better Call Saul:

Spoiler

Show

Jimmy and Kim. I like how Kim's suggestion of marriage is so that she never has to testify against Jimmy for his misdeeds...but she's not leaving. His illegal activity isn't a deal-breaker for her, but she doesn't propose marriage out of love (though they do clearly care about each other quite a lot), but rather out of practicality.

And in the last season, we finally see her other reasoning: she likes it. She enjoys the thrill of a con and she and Jimmy feed off each other. It's a terrible dynamic that they both enjoy quite a bit...until things finally go completely sideways with Howard.

I love BCS for so many reasons and yeah, that's one of them. They handled that relationship so well.

Abolishing marriage itself is a bit too far, but... In this day and age, marriage is just a piece of paper and maybe a fancy party.

Yeah, i don't understand at all why gay people fought so hard to get married, those crazy kids! Years and years of fighting against institutional discrimination just for a piece of paper and a party. What a funny entire ****ing community working for decades.

Or, conversely, your ideas on marriage is horribly wrong. I dunno, could go either way, the odds are like 50/50

[Rater202]

Yeah, i don't understand at all why gay people fought so hard to get married, those crazy kids!

Because it was denied to them for unfair reasons. Practical value asside, marriage is a symbol. Being denied it for no valid reason is outrageous on principle.

[Peelee]

Because it was denied to them for unfair reasons. Practical value asside, marriage is a symbol. Being denied it for no valid reason is outrageous on principle.

Again, you can certainly believe whatever you want to believe about marriage, but i can tell you right now the entire gay community didn't work for decades trying to get something denied to them only because it was a symbol and unfair. They fought for it because of all the practical value that married couples get. It is not "just a piece of paper and maybe a fancy party". They fought for it because separate-but-equal is never actually equal. They didn't fight for the symbol. They fought for the rights.

[Rater202]

Again, you can certainly believe whatever you want to believe about marriage, but i can tell you right now the entire gay community didn't work for decades trying to get something denied to them only because it was a symbol and unfair. They fought for it because of all the practical value that married couples get. It is not "just a piece of paper and maybe a fancy party". They fought for it because separate-but-equal is never actually equal. They didn't fight for the symbol. They fought for the rights.

Here's the thing: Almost all of the practical value in a marriage... 1: Is not exclusive to marriage 2: Should not be exclusive to marriage 3: Is something more and more people nowadays are opting out of anyways(such as comingling assets) or 4: Shouldn't exist in the first place (being the one and only familial relationship/contract that can be used to refuse to testify in court.)

I ain't saying abolish marriage. I'm saying the practical stuff should be divorced form what amounts to something ceremonial.

[Anonymouswizard]

The kid is four. People who lack the qualifications to make this judgment want to put a four-year-old on what are essentially controlled doses of hard drugs because he won't sit still in a way that's convenient for them.

Kids that age are generally little goblins of Chaos Undivided. I'd be more worried if they were sitting still.

Because it was denied to them for unfair reasons. Practical value asside, marriage is a symbol.

If you ignore the meaningful bits everything is meaningless!

Being denied it for no valid reason is outrageous on principle.

Hear hear! Let's end the monopoly the monogamous have on marriage!

No I don't want that telling match again, I'm just failing to be funny.

[Peelee]

Here's the thing: Almost all of the practical value in a marriage... 1: Is not exclusive to marriage 2: Should not be exclusive to marriage 3: Is something more and more people nowadays are opting out of anyways(such as comingling assets) or 4: Shouldn't exist in the first place (being the one and only familial relationship/contract that can be used to refuse to testify in court.)

I ain't saying abolish marriage. I'm saying the practical stuff should be divorced form what amounts to something ceremonial.

Your points 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all wrong.

Here's the thing. If you believe all that, then the solution is for you, specifically, to not get married. It is not for you to strip the rights and benefits of being married away from everyone else, especially those who fought for it to be legalized for them (eg interracial couples and LGBT+ couples).

The latter makes you the bad guy. You may not think it does, but it very much does. Let me be very clear on this - I have ZERO sympathy for anyone who thinks taking away the rights and priveleges of marriage for everyone (some of which can be recreated to various extents through other means, which will not recreate all of the benefits exactly, will not include other benefits at all, and will be more expensive, time-consuming, and complex) is all well and good just because they think it's "a piece of paper".

You want to think its a piece of paper, fine, you're perfectly free to not get it for yourself. You want to oppress others by stripping them of it? Hell no.

[Rater202]

If you ignore the meaningful bits everything is meaningless!

Marriage is a ceremony. The "meaningful bits" should not be gated behind a ceremony to begin with.

Like, real talk: Marriage started out as essentially an exchange of property. Over time it became more something of political or religious significance, but we can't get into that in detail here, and in the modern day in the Western world it's mostly symbolic with the practical benefits there off being things that honestly have no basis for being attached to one specific contract in the first place. It's a remnant of an earlier era when marriage meant something different.

If those practicalities are divorced from the ceremony, then there's no reason why a couple who have been living together for ten years needs to get married to be able to comingle their assets, visit each other in the hospital, or be able to handle each other's affairs in an emergency. The only reason to get married should be "do you want to get married?"

Edit: Peelee? When did I say anything about taking rights away from individuals? On the contrary, divorcing those practicalities from the marriage contract means that more people will have the right to get those practicalities.

Furthermore, laws can not be applied retroactively, so everyone who already has those things would not lose them if laws were passed divorcing marriage from such things. People who already have it would be grandfathered in.

The only I believe should be taken away is a spousal privilege because I don't believe that two people who robbed a bank in Reno should be able to get out of being compelled to testify against each other if arrested by stopping in Vegas on the way to their hideout and the only way to do that without making marriage harder to get for everyone is to abolish that privilege.

[Peelee]

Marriage is a ceremony.

This just underscores your issue here. You are conflating marriage and wedding. A wedding is a ceremony. A wedding is immaterial to marriage. You can easily be married without a wedding, and it happens every day in virtually every courthouse in America, and other countries.

The vast majority of countries, both modern and historical, have understood the value in having special right and priveleges for marriage. Rater disagrees. Can you please consider, for just a moment, that when a massive chunk of the entire human race across various cultures says one thing and you say "pft, I don't think so", that just maybe you're the one who's wrong?

[Keltest]

Marriage is a ceremony. The "meaningful bits" should not be gated behind a ceremony to begin with.

Like, real talk: Marriage started out as essentially an exchange of property. Over time it became more something of political or religious significance, but we can't get into that in detail here, and in the modern day in the Western world it's mostly symbolic with the practical benefits there off being things that honestly have no basis for being attached to one specific contract in the first place. It's a remnant of an earlier era when marriage meant something different.

If those practicalities are divorced from the ceremony, then there's no reason why a couple who have been living together for ten years needs to get married to be able to comingle their assets, visit each other in the hospital, or be able to handle each other's affairs in an emergency. The only reason to get married should be "do you want to get married?"

Irrespective of anything else, there are lots of practical reasons to have legalized standards for what happens to the property of the person you live with and comingle resources with should that situation ever change, as well as not forcing an intrinsically antagonistic relationship between two people who have little choice but to live together (ie testifying against each other).

Marriage isnt always a big wedding ceremony and whatever, there are plenty of ways and places to do it as literally just signing a contract already. People throw the parties and whatever because its exciting, not because its intrinsic to marriage.

[Rater202]

I am going to point out that you have missed my edit and be done with it.

[Keltest]

I am going to point out that you have missed my edit and be done with it.

Your edit demonstrates, as Peelee said, a fundamental misunderstanding of marriage. Its a contract. You can't not have those rights and benefits without a contract. Separating it from marriage is just renaming the contract, a particularly pointless hill to die on.

[Peelee]

I am going to point out that you have missed my edit and be done with it.

I haven't, because despite what you think, that edit is wrong. Again, as already said, you cannot recreate all the rights and privileges of marriage without marriage. You can recreate some of them, can somewhat (but not fully) recreate others, and absolutely cannot recreate the rest. And even that is more expensive, time-consuming, and complex than marriage, without actually recreating the benefits identically. You've only made it harder and worse.

This is very simple. Your ideas on what marriage is are wrong.

[Rater202]

Again, as already said, you cannot recreate all the rights and privileges of marriage without marriage.

Why not?

You're saying that you can't do it, but what intrinsic property of the marriage, which may I remind you is something humans made up, not an immutable property of the universe, presents its practical benefits from being realized by other relationships or other contracts?

[Keltest]

Why not?

You're saying that you can't do it, but what intrinsic property of the marriage, which may I remind you is something humans made up, not an immutable property of the universe, presents its practical benefits from being realized by other relationships or other contracts?

Youre right, we could create a contract that is identical to marriage except we don't call it that. Why would we do that? We already have that contract!