The only “Ferguson Effect” is the cops being too fucking paranoid about enemy combatants in the field (read: average people on the street) to do their goddamn jobs.
Are the police such snivelling cowards that they can't deal with the fact that someone will be reaching into the standard location of the thing they just asked for?
Blame this, in part, on the “you’re a soldier in a war zone” mentality taught to (and by) numerous police departments that makes police officers paranoid about even the slightest movement by an “enemy combatant”.
When the government demands everyone be given a fair platform
…it creates a paradox: What’s “fair” to people who want to attack the marginalized and troll people in general won’t be “fair” to those being attacked and trolled (and ultimately driven off the service).
Anyone who claims to be pro life and anti abortion should be out there fighting for comprehensive sex ed and free contraception, because that is what actually works to cut down on abortions.
They should also be fighting for anything that makes childcare less expensive and improves the foster care/adoption system. Y’know, if they were actually “pro-life” instead of “pro–forced birth”.
how does providing alternative options to abortion and regulating it in any way somehow make a woman not own her own body?
The Texas law doesn’t provide an “alternative” to abortion. It sure as hell doesn’t provide any funding for either programs that help lower abortion rates (e.g., comprehensive sex education, free/affordable contraception) or post-birth childcare programs. All it does is make any abortion after six weeks of pregnancy illegal to perform in the state of Texas.
And a woman owns her body when she alone gets to make the decision about what she does with her body. The Texas law puts that control in the hands of basically everyone but the woman herself…well, after six weeks of pregnancy, anyway.
keep in mind that the DNA of the unborn child is completely different from the mother's
so what
the excuse about carrying a rapist's baby is just that, and it ignores (just like those who push it) the very real fact that the baby is an innocent
Yes or no: If you believe all life is sacred regardless of the circumstances of its conception, do you believe a 13-year-old who was impregnated via rape should be forced by law to bear the child of her rapist?
it's also wrong to demonize and belittle anyone who feels that some form of regulation is in order
Regulation is fine. (The Swedish model for abortion strikes me as the best possible compromise.) But by and large, anti-choice/anti-abortion advocates don’t want regulation—they want the abolishment of the legal right to abortion in the United States. That would mean more forced births, more back-alley/illegal/unsafe abortions, and God knows how many more maternal deaths from either the births or the abortions.
How many women would have to die from a lack of access to legal abortion before you graciously concede that they should have the absolute right to choose what they can do with their own bodies?
I hope the fact that I’ve admitted to being a cisgender male multiple times in the past would’ve been your first clue.
there's an ample case to be made for violent self-defense in Texas where the ownership of a womb has now become fairly conditional
And who, exactly, would be on the other side of this violence? Would it be the people filing lawsuits under the bullshit law, or the people who passed that law, or someone else entirely? At what point does enforcement of this law, such as it is, become something that requires violence to counteract? How would you suggest preventing an escalation of violence between pro-choice activists and anti-choice activists?
I’m sympathetic to women in Texas who feel their rights are being attacked. I firmly believe they should have the right to decide whether they want an abortion—and the right to get an abortion if they want one. But I don’t know when I can condone violence as a means of protecting that right. (Yes, “when”, not “if”.) Violence should always be the absolute last resort; even when it is necessary, it is ground upon which we should still tread carefully.
That position doesn’t make me tolerant of intolerance. It makes me someone who doesn’t think violence is the only answer—or should even be the first answer—to intolerance.
More words won't help. Either sane people start running these misfits out of town in tar and feathers en masse now...or the time will come when simply bullying those assholes right back won't be enough.
Those “misfits” are the ones in charge, and they’re also the kind of people who—as you put it—“won't quit, can't be shamed away, and can't be convinced to back down”. Humiliating them by exposing their hypocrisy won’t work; that would require them to have the capacity for shame. Changing laws won’t work; they’ll either change them back or find ways of getting around those laws. Voting them out of office won’t work; they’ll come back in the next election, win, and take everyone right back to where they started.
Literally the only solution to the problem you yourself posed—how to stop people with no sense of shame or remorse and no capacity for compromise or empathy—seems to be violence. So what form of violence will be necessary to “run[ ]these misfits out of town in tar and feathers en masse”? How many people will this violence need to be inflicted upon before it solves the problem? How much collateral damage will be considered “acceptable”?
I am under no illusions that words alone will stop elected Republicans and their conservative brethren both in and out of office. That said: I fail to see how we can solve the problem you’ve posed without resorting to violence. If you can think of any other non-violent options that might actually work—and aren’t only “vote the bastards out of office” or a variant thereof—now would be a hell of a good time to share them. Otherwise, I only have one more question: When must the “problem-solving” violence begin?
It was. And it was aimed at me. (Hint: Look at their name.)
They’re mad that I’m apparently not willing to think of violence as anything but an actual last resort for protecting human rights. And they’re right—which is to say I believe violence should be a last resort instead of the first.
I once brought up a saying I read on Tumblr that goes like this: “Violence for violence is the rule of beasts.” I don’t take that saying to mean “violence committed to match violence is inhuman”; I take it to mean “violence committed for its own sake is inhuman”. Violence in defense of self and others, including in defense of bodily autonomy and/or civil rights, is justifiable and even commendable. And I’m willing to condone such violence, albeit situationally. (I’d have to know details and whatnot to personally sign off on it.)
But in regards to the Texas law: I don’t believe violence is the solution to that particular problem…yet. And I would generally like to avoid seeing this country fall into another civil war. But if violence becomes the only way to protect a woman’s right to obtain an abortion if she wants one, I would be willing to condone that violence.
When I was a kid, I was a violent shithead. I know how it feels to want to solve every problem by punching people in the face. But I went a bit too far with that thinking one day; after I got in a lot of trouble for that, I swore not to be that kind of violent shithead again. Violence is not something I’m going to condemn outright—but it also won’t be something I condone as a reflex.
(Unless it’s punching Nazis. That shit always gets a pass from me. Fuck Nazis.)
what I see in the US is exactly that; a nation where the tolerant keep trying to tolerate the intolerant, as a result of which bigots and racists are taking over simply because unlike the peaceful sheep the person who hates the other is highly motivated to seek office and power
One of the issues I have with Democrats is that they’re unwilling to metaphorically throw elbows when they’re in office. They’re not willing to go on the offense and pass laws that get shit done—e.g., protecting voting rights, fighting climate change, even legislating abortion rights—then dare Republicans to take it all back when the GOP is in power again. They do just enough to seem like “the good guys” and win elections, but in reality, they’re mostly feckless cowards. And yes, that includes Joe Biden, who could absolutely be ripping into Manchin and Sinema for their refusal to sacrifice the filibuster in the name of getting shit done.
Too many elected Democrats these days still believe in “bipartisanship”—in the idea that Republicans could still be willing to bargain and compromise, to give a little and get a little in return. Those days are done. Democrats who refuse to see that are fools; Democrats who see it but refuse to act on it are cowards.
On the post: Investigation: Minneapolis Cops Responded To George Floyd's Murder By Refusing To Do Their Jobs While Still Collecting Their Paychecks
The only “Ferguson Effect” is the cops being too fucking paranoid about enemy combatants in the field (read: average people on the street) to do their goddamn jobs.
On the post: Texas' Unconstitutional Social Media Censorship Bill Challenged In Court, Just As Texas Joins The Legal Fight For Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Bill
well aren’t you a racist piece of shit
On the post: Minnesota Dept. Of Public Safety Now Handing Out License/Insurance Carriers In Hopes Of Keeping Cops From Killing More Drivers
Blame this, in part, on the “you’re a soldier in a war zone” mentality taught to (and by) numerous police departments that makes police officers paranoid about even the slightest movement by an “enemy combatant”.
On the post: Texas' Unconstitutional Social Media Censorship Bill Challenged In Court, Just As Texas Joins The Legal Fight For Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Bill
…it creates a paradox: What’s “fair” to people who want to attack the marginalized and troll people in general won’t be “fair” to those being attacked and trolled (and ultimately driven off the service).
On the post: Texas' Unconstitutional Social Media Censorship Bill Challenged In Court, Just As Texas Joins The Legal Fight For Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Bill
The next major cold snap in Texas will probably do that.
On the post: Minnesota Dept. Of Public Safety Now Handing Out License/Insurance Carriers In Hopes Of Keeping Cops From Killing More Drivers
Man, the government really will do anything to avoid training cops not to be “on active alert” against “the enemy” out in the “war zone”.
On the post: The Night The United States Supreme Court Cancelled Law
It probably would…if the IRS had the funding (and thus the staffing) necessary to fully enforce the Johnson Amendment.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
no it isn't
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
says the dude who ripped off a model from one of Scott Cawthon’s games
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
Good luck surviving the steamroller that is a corporate copyright lawyer.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
please seek professional medical help for your mental illness
On the post: FBI Sat On Ransomware Decryption Key For Weeks As Victims Lost Millions Of Dollars
OSHA?
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Bing Search Results Erases Images Of 'Tank Man' On Anniversary Of Tiananmen Square Crackdown (2021)
Can’t it be both?
On the post: The Night The United States Supreme Court Cancelled Law
They should also be fighting for anything that makes childcare less expensive and improves the foster care/adoption system. Y’know, if they were actually “pro-life” instead of “pro–forced birth”.
On the post: The Night The United States Supreme Court Cancelled Law
The Texas law doesn’t provide an “alternative” to abortion. It sure as hell doesn’t provide any funding for either programs that help lower abortion rates (e.g., comprehensive sex education, free/affordable contraception) or post-birth childcare programs. All it does is make any abortion after six weeks of pregnancy illegal to perform in the state of Texas.
And a woman owns her body when she alone gets to make the decision about what she does with her body. The Texas law puts that control in the hands of basically everyone but the woman herself…well, after six weeks of pregnancy, anyway.
so what
Yes or no: If you believe all life is sacred regardless of the circumstances of its conception, do you believe a 13-year-old who was impregnated via rape should be forced by law to bear the child of her rapist?
Regulation is fine. (The Swedish model for abortion strikes me as the best possible compromise.) But by and large, anti-choice/anti-abortion advocates don’t want regulation—they want the abolishment of the legal right to abortion in the United States. That would mean more forced births, more back-alley/illegal/unsafe abortions, and God knows how many more maternal deaths from either the births or the abortions.
How many women would have to die from a lack of access to legal abortion before you graciously concede that they should have the absolute right to choose what they can do with their own bodies?
On the post: The Night The United States Supreme Court Cancelled Law
I hope the fact that I’ve admitted to being a cisgender male multiple times in the past would’ve been your first clue.
And who, exactly, would be on the other side of this violence? Would it be the people filing lawsuits under the bullshit law, or the people who passed that law, or someone else entirely? At what point does enforcement of this law, such as it is, become something that requires violence to counteract? How would you suggest preventing an escalation of violence between pro-choice activists and anti-choice activists?
I’m sympathetic to women in Texas who feel their rights are being attacked. I firmly believe they should have the right to decide whether they want an abortion—and the right to get an abortion if they want one. But I don’t know when I can condone violence as a means of protecting that right. (Yes, “when”, not “if”.) Violence should always be the absolute last resort; even when it is necessary, it is ground upon which we should still tread carefully.
That position doesn’t make me tolerant of intolerance. It makes me someone who doesn’t think violence is the only answer—or should even be the first answer—to intolerance.
Those “misfits” are the ones in charge, and they’re also the kind of people who—as you put it—“won't quit, can't be shamed away, and can't be convinced to back down”. Humiliating them by exposing their hypocrisy won’t work; that would require them to have the capacity for shame. Changing laws won’t work; they’ll either change them back or find ways of getting around those laws. Voting them out of office won’t work; they’ll come back in the next election, win, and take everyone right back to where they started.
Literally the only solution to the problem you yourself posed—how to stop people with no sense of shame or remorse and no capacity for compromise or empathy—seems to be violence. So what form of violence will be necessary to “run[ ]these misfits out of town in tar and feathers en masse”? How many people will this violence need to be inflicted upon before it solves the problem? How much collateral damage will be considered “acceptable”?
I am under no illusions that words alone will stop elected Republicans and their conservative brethren both in and out of office. That said: I fail to see how we can solve the problem you’ve posed without resorting to violence. If you can think of any other non-violent options that might actually work—and aren’t only “vote the bastards out of office” or a variant thereof—now would be a hell of a good time to share them. Otherwise, I only have one more question: When must the “problem-solving” violence begin?
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Bing Search Results Erases Images Of 'Tank Man' On Anniversary Of Tiananmen Square Crackdown (2021)
Bing is only good for using its video search to find porn.
On the post: The Night The United States Supreme Court Cancelled Law
It was. And it was aimed at me. (Hint: Look at their name.)
They’re mad that I’m apparently not willing to think of violence as anything but an actual last resort for protecting human rights. And they’re right—which is to say I believe violence should be a last resort instead of the first.
I once brought up a saying I read on Tumblr that goes like this: “Violence for violence is the rule of beasts.” I don’t take that saying to mean “violence committed to match violence is inhuman”; I take it to mean “violence committed for its own sake is inhuman”. Violence in defense of self and others, including in defense of bodily autonomy and/or civil rights, is justifiable and even commendable. And I’m willing to condone such violence, albeit situationally. (I’d have to know details and whatnot to personally sign off on it.)
But in regards to the Texas law: I don’t believe violence is the solution to that particular problem…yet. And I would generally like to avoid seeing this country fall into another civil war. But if violence becomes the only way to protect a woman’s right to obtain an abortion if she wants one, I would be willing to condone that violence.
When I was a kid, I was a violent shithead. I know how it feels to want to solve every problem by punching people in the face. But I went a bit too far with that thinking one day; after I got in a lot of trouble for that, I swore not to be that kind of violent shithead again. Violence is not something I’m going to condemn outright—but it also won’t be something I condone as a reflex.
(Unless it’s punching Nazis. That shit always gets a pass from me. Fuck Nazis.)
One of the issues I have with Democrats is that they’re unwilling to metaphorically throw elbows when they’re in office. They’re not willing to go on the offense and pass laws that get shit done—e.g., protecting voting rights, fighting climate change, even legislating abortion rights—then dare Republicans to take it all back when the GOP is in power again. They do just enough to seem like “the good guys” and win elections, but in reality, they’re mostly feckless cowards. And yes, that includes Joe Biden, who could absolutely be ripping into Manchin and Sinema for their refusal to sacrifice the filibuster in the name of getting shit done.
Too many elected Democrats these days still believe in “bipartisanship”—in the idea that Republicans could still be willing to bargain and compromise, to give a little and get a little in return. Those days are done. Democrats who refuse to see that are fools; Democrats who see it but refuse to act on it are cowards.
On the post: The Night The United States Supreme Court Cancelled Law
I know more than a few people who would probably disagree. (Me being among them.)
On the post: The Night The United States Supreme Court Cancelled Law
To be fair, people here give me their time and attention on a regular basis, so… 👀
Next >>