An open thread. Georgia is a brand of canned coffee sold in Asia, originally a Coca-Cola and Nescafe collaboration, but then, Coca-Cola took over the brand. Anyway, it seemed apropos.
Another thing, we had a bizarre spike in visits two weeks ago. Here is the jump and two days on either side.
|
2023-08-09 |
314 |
|
2023-08-10 |
368 |
|
2023-08-11 |
4874 |
|
2023-08-12 |
282 |
|
2023-08-13 |
318 |
Anything happen on August 11th?
They used to sell Georgia coffee (freshly brewed and hot, not canned) in the cafe in my office building. It was terrible. That is all.
They used to sell Georgia coffee (freshly brewed and hot, not canned) in the cafe in my office building. It was terrible. That is all.
The question in my mind is: how soon does the drip-drip-drip of rats deserting the sinking ship become a flood?
And not just the Georgia co-defendants. Some will doubtless decide to go down with the ship. But actual cult membership, as opposed to opportunism/cowardice, is far from universal.
The question in my mind is: how soon does the drip-drip-drip of rats deserting the sinking ship become a flood?
And not just the Georgia co-defendants. Some will doubtless decide to go down with the ship. But actual cult membership, as opposed to opportunism/cowardice, is far from universal.
First you have to notice that the ship is going down and then accept that as reality.
HyBrazil is NOT sinking!
The interesting question is the location and size of the intervaL between the forced acceptance of the permanent downward direction of the vessel and the last chance to still step off safely (hoping for a seemless Johnny Depp in Port Royal).
Btw, on airships the rats use golden parachutes.
First you have to notice that the ship is going down and then accept that as reality.
HyBrazil is NOT sinking!
The interesting question is the location and size of the intervaL between the forced acceptance of the permanent downward direction of the vessel and the last chance to still step off safely (hoping for a seemless Johnny Depp in Port Royal).
Btw, on airships the rats use golden parachutes.
Palin wants us all to know that if we insist on their being consequences that there will be consequences.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/25/sarah-palin-us-civil-war-donald-trump-prosecutions
I may have said it here before, but the RW really sounds like the abuser in an abusive relationship, trying to convince the other party that All This Is Your Fault.
I don’t think that the breakaway right wing can be talked back, or that they will self-correct. I still hold out hope that this will not spill out into more widespread and organized violence, but this is a very dangerous time.
Palin wants us all to know that if we insist on their being consequences that there will be consequences.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/25/sarah-palin-us-civil-war-donald-trump-prosecutions
I may have said it here before, but the RW really sounds like the abuser in an abusive relationship, trying to convince the other party that All This Is Your Fault.
I don’t think that the breakaway right wing can be talked back, or that they will self-correct. I still hold out hope that this will not spill out into more widespread and organized violence, but this is a very dangerous time.
wj,
As a general rule, cults (especially large ones) do not go quietly into the night.
wj,
As a general rule, cults (especially large ones) do not go quietly into the night.
I still hold out hope that this will not spill out into more widespread and organized violence, but this is a very dangerous time.
All the more because one side seems to think it’s only dangerous for the other side, but it’s dangerous for everyone. It’s probably even more dangerous for the nutty minority pushing for violence, at least in the long run.
Fools rush in.
I still hold out hope that this will not spill out into more widespread and organized violence, but this is a very dangerous time.
All the more because one side seems to think it’s only dangerous for the other side, but it’s dangerous for everyone. It’s probably even more dangerous for the nutty minority pushing for violence, at least in the long run.
Fools rush in.
Words fail me.
If they want to win, Republicans need to go on offense on abortion
By Kellyanne Conway and Marjorie Dannenfelser
Not sure how much more detatched from reality they can get.
Words fail me.
If they want to win, Republicans need to go on offense on abortion
By Kellyanne Conway and Marjorie Dannenfelser
Not sure how much more detatched from reality they can get.
Bret Deveraux on the importance of keeping political leaders accountable for their crimes:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1692941345860489512.html
Julius Caesar restarted a civil war primarily because he was determined not to be held accountable for his crimes during his consulship. As Bret notes, nearly every Roman of consequence when it started in 49 BC was dead by the end in 30 BC, along with the Roman Republic.
Bret Deveraux on the importance of keeping political leaders accountable for their crimes:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1692941345860489512.html
Julius Caesar restarted a civil war primarily because he was determined not to be held accountable for his crimes during his consulship. As Bret notes, nearly every Roman of consequence when it started in 49 BC was dead by the end in 30 BC, along with the Roman Republic.
Not sure how much more detatched from reality they can get.
WJ, did you read the article? The authors call for a national limit allowing abortion in the first 15 weeks of pregnancy, a more lenient view than Roe’s 1st trimester rule. Reasonable minds can disagree, but I’m not sure how this is particularly unhinged.
Not sure how much more detatched from reality they can get.
WJ, did you read the article? The authors call for a national limit allowing abortion in the first 15 weeks of pregnancy, a more lenient view than Roe’s 1st trimester rule. Reasonable minds can disagree, but I’m not sure how this is particularly unhinged.
McKinney,
As far as I can tell, the entire abortion issue is a serious loser for the GOP. The 15 weeks is a “comprise” between the absolutists and those in the GOP hoping the issue can be finessed, at least temporarily. But, outside the party, it doesn’t look anything like a compromise.
If one believes the polls are even vaguely in the ballpark, public (specifically voting public) opinion isn’t in favor of having government involved at all. A committed optimist might hope that some constraints on the 3rd trimester might fly. But I sure wouldn’t bet the ranch on it.
The unhinged part results from the knowledge of this reality. Which I expect the authors have. Given that the absolutists are a force in the party, simply changing position is probably not on. At which point, just shutting up and hoping (admitredly probably in vain) that the Democrats focus elsewhere is the best available option. But calling for pushing the issue to the fore, in order to win elections generally? That is, IMHO, utterly unrealistic.
McKinney,
As far as I can tell, the entire abortion issue is a serious loser for the GOP. The 15 weeks is a “comprise” between the absolutists and those in the GOP hoping the issue can be finessed, at least temporarily. But, outside the party, it doesn’t look anything like a compromise.
If one believes the polls are even vaguely in the ballpark, public (specifically voting public) opinion isn’t in favor of having government involved at all. A committed optimist might hope that some constraints on the 3rd trimester might fly. But I sure wouldn’t bet the ranch on it.
The unhinged part results from the knowledge of this reality. Which I expect the authors have. Given that the absolutists are a force in the party, simply changing position is probably not on. At which point, just shutting up and hoping (admitredly probably in vain) that the Democrats focus elsewhere is the best available option. But calling for pushing the issue to the fore, in order to win elections generally? That is, IMHO, utterly unrealistic.
nearly every Roman of consequence when it started in 49 BC was dead by the end in 30 BC, along with the Roman Republic.
We will be lucky if we have 19 years…
nearly every Roman of consequence when it started in 49 BC was dead by the end in 30 BC, along with the Roman Republic.
We will be lucky if we have 19 years…
I’m trying to remain a Roman of no consequence.
I’m trying to remain a Roman of no consequence.
Canned coffee? Yeeeeuck! Plus I hear this stuff, after 15 weeks, is more lenient than Roe, a claim that is laughably false.
Canned coffee? Yeeeeuck! Plus I hear this stuff, after 15 weeks, is more lenient than Roe, a claim that is laughably false.
a claim that is laughably false.
Surely not a surprise. Even more than the average for MAGAts, these folks appear nearly as allergic to the truth as TIFG. The only difference being that they lie for a reason (they know their position is toxic), whereas he appears to lie reflexively.
a claim that is laughably false.
Surely not a surprise. Even more than the average for MAGAts, these folks appear nearly as allergic to the truth as TIFG. The only difference being that they lie for a reason (they know their position is toxic), whereas he appears to lie reflexively.
We need a better word than “lie” or “bullshit” to describe Trump’s statements. He says whatever he concludes will benefit him at the moment he says it. It has nothing to do with truth, or even long term planning.
[“He, Trump” is my favorite appellation, coined by Charles Pierce. A close second is Orangemandias.]
We need a better word than “lie” or “bullshit” to describe Trump’s statements. He says whatever he concludes will benefit him at the moment he says it. It has nothing to do with truth, or even long term planning.
[“He, Trump” is my favorite appellation, coined by Charles Pierce. A close second is Orangemandias.]
“Por-lifers” were sin of priders. Their interest in abortion never had anything to do with protecting babies and had everything to do with their love of sneering at and demeaning other people while bragging about their superior morals. How do I know? Because the same people who said it was murder to terminate a pregnancy after six weeks also thought it was somehow not murder to terminate a pregnancy from rape but did think that it was murder to use a morning after pill. And so on. The sin of pride movement has never been able to decide on actual policy because they have never been able to sort through all the contradictions. It’s murder!!!! But not murder when I say it isn’t! But it is when I say it is! So why not decide that it isn’t murder until after fifteen weeks? As long as they get to feel all smug and superior about their imaginary superior moral values, I don’t think the sin-of-priders actually care about policy.
“Por-lifers” were sin of priders. Their interest in abortion never had anything to do with protecting babies and had everything to do with their love of sneering at and demeaning other people while bragging about their superior morals. How do I know? Because the same people who said it was murder to terminate a pregnancy after six weeks also thought it was somehow not murder to terminate a pregnancy from rape but did think that it was murder to use a morning after pill. And so on. The sin of pride movement has never been able to decide on actual policy because they have never been able to sort through all the contradictions. It’s murder!!!! But not murder when I say it isn’t! But it is when I say it is! So why not decide that it isn’t murder until after fifteen weeks? As long as they get to feel all smug and superior about their imaginary superior moral values, I don’t think the sin-of-priders actually care about policy.
A close second is Orangemandias.
I had never heard this. Excellent!
Even more than the average for MAGAts, these folks appear nearly as allergic to the truth as TIFG. The only difference being that they lie for a reason (they know their position is toxic)
Yes, let us never forget that one of the authors is the same Kellyanne Conway who lamented the famous Bowling Green Massacre, and who coined the immortal “alternative facts”.
A close second is Orangemandias.
I had never heard this. Excellent!
Even more than the average for MAGAts, these folks appear nearly as allergic to the truth as TIFG. The only difference being that they lie for a reason (they know their position is toxic)
Yes, let us never forget that one of the authors is the same Kellyanne Conway who lamented the famous Bowling Green Massacre, and who coined the immortal “alternative facts”.
“Por-lifers” were sin of priders. Their interest in abortion never had anything to do with protecting babies and had everything to do with their love of sneering at and demeaning other people while bragging about their superior morals.
This is a profoundly ignorant, vicious and arrogant statement. You know nothing about people who hold pro-life views, and it is you who sneers at people you disagree with every time you comment. No rational person can argue that terminating a pregnancy does not terminate an in vitro human being. The question is whether the in vitro human being’s rights are superior to the mother’s rights. Roe recognized this and the vast majority of democratic regimes have limits on abortion, precisely for this reason.
I’ve been pro-life all of my life, including while being a sexually active teenager. I knew the risk I was running. Our son was born just over 7 months after we got married–as undergraduates–and having a baby and getting married was the last thing on our minds, but we never considered the alternative. We’re now close to our 47th anniversary.
How do I know? Because the same people who said it was murder to terminate a pregnancy after six weeks also thought it was somehow not murder to terminate a pregnancy from rape but did think that it was murder to use a morning after pill.
Clearly, you pay no attention to those with whom you disagree, and rather than give others the respect of a fair hearing, you default to gross intellectual dishonesty, declaring your enemies to be beyond the pale. That’s fine–it’s in the DNA of ideologues and you are truly and hopelessly ideological. Pro-life people do not agree with elective abortion under almost all circumstances. Any abortion terminates the life of an in vitro human. That is the first principle. Many–not all–but many, recognize exceptions for rape, incest and a threat to the mother’s health (interpreted with sufficient breadth that all reasonable doubts are resolved in favor of the mother). This is where I fall. It is a balancing of interests under difficult circumstances. Clearly, you don’t agree, but I am very confident that I have spent a lot more time trying to understand and respect the views–and the people who hold those views–who I disagree with than you have ever evidenced in all the years I’ve followed your self-certain assertions of moral superiority.
But not murder when I say it isn’t! But it is when I say it is! So why not decide that it isn’t murder until after fifteen weeks?
This is a fair question, whether that was your intent or not. Either one is pro-life or one is not. Six or fifteen weeks doesn’t matter, if the priority is the in vitro human being. I do not agree with pro-life absolutists. I particularly do not agree with conservatives who claimed pro-life status when it was convenient or advantageous but who are willing to compromise when politically expedient.
I don’t care for double standards, the arrogance and incivility that marks both parties and their extremes, and I especially don’t care for self-righteous mind readers who make meaningful exchanges of views impossible.
“Por-lifers” were sin of priders. Their interest in abortion never had anything to do with protecting babies and had everything to do with their love of sneering at and demeaning other people while bragging about their superior morals.
This is a profoundly ignorant, vicious and arrogant statement. You know nothing about people who hold pro-life views, and it is you who sneers at people you disagree with every time you comment. No rational person can argue that terminating a pregnancy does not terminate an in vitro human being. The question is whether the in vitro human being’s rights are superior to the mother’s rights. Roe recognized this and the vast majority of democratic regimes have limits on abortion, precisely for this reason.
I’ve been pro-life all of my life, including while being a sexually active teenager. I knew the risk I was running. Our son was born just over 7 months after we got married–as undergraduates–and having a baby and getting married was the last thing on our minds, but we never considered the alternative. We’re now close to our 47th anniversary.
How do I know? Because the same people who said it was murder to terminate a pregnancy after six weeks also thought it was somehow not murder to terminate a pregnancy from rape but did think that it was murder to use a morning after pill.
Clearly, you pay no attention to those with whom you disagree, and rather than give others the respect of a fair hearing, you default to gross intellectual dishonesty, declaring your enemies to be beyond the pale. That’s fine–it’s in the DNA of ideologues and you are truly and hopelessly ideological. Pro-life people do not agree with elective abortion under almost all circumstances. Any abortion terminates the life of an in vitro human. That is the first principle. Many–not all–but many, recognize exceptions for rape, incest and a threat to the mother’s health (interpreted with sufficient breadth that all reasonable doubts are resolved in favor of the mother). This is where I fall. It is a balancing of interests under difficult circumstances. Clearly, you don’t agree, but I am very confident that I have spent a lot more time trying to understand and respect the views–and the people who hold those views–who I disagree with than you have ever evidenced in all the years I’ve followed your self-certain assertions of moral superiority.
But not murder when I say it isn’t! But it is when I say it is! So why not decide that it isn’t murder until after fifteen weeks?
This is a fair question, whether that was your intent or not. Either one is pro-life or one is not. Six or fifteen weeks doesn’t matter, if the priority is the in vitro human being. I do not agree with pro-life absolutists. I particularly do not agree with conservatives who claimed pro-life status when it was convenient or advantageous but who are willing to compromise when politically expedient.
I don’t care for double standards, the arrogance and incivility that marks both parties and their extremes, and I especially don’t care for self-righteous mind readers who make meaningful exchanges of views impossible.
“the in vitro human being”
You keep saying those words. I do not think you know what they mean.
“the in vitro human being”
You keep saying those words. I do not think you know what they mean.
No rational person can argue that terminating a pregnancy does not terminate an in vitro human being.
Actually, quite a few quite rational people do argue the contrary.
If there is an objective way to determine exactly when one transitions from a potential human being to an actual one, I have yet to encounter it. The closest I’ve encountered is “When it is possible to support it outside the womb.” Which still leaves vague what level of extraordinary measures are involved. And whether the timing changes as technology evolves — which seems . . . odd.
No rational person can argue that terminating a pregnancy does not terminate an in vitro human being.
Actually, quite a few quite rational people do argue the contrary.
If there is an objective way to determine exactly when one transitions from a potential human being to an actual one, I have yet to encounter it. The closest I’ve encountered is “When it is possible to support it outside the womb.” Which still leaves vague what level of extraordinary measures are involved. And whether the timing changes as technology evolves — which seems . . . odd.
In vitro was incorrect. In utero is what I meant.
In vitro was incorrect. In utero is what I meant.
McTX: I do not agree with pro-life absolutists.
That’s commendable. This …
… the arrogance and incivility that marks both parties and their extremes …
… seems disingenuous.
“Pro-life absolutists” have been known to murder doctors, bomb clinics, and harass women seeking abortions. Unless you can recall equivalent “incivility” perpetrated by “pro-choice absolutists”, your commitment to both-sdes-ism is one of those things that makes “meaningful exchanges of views” difficult.
I have been known to jury-rig a trap to catch, unhurt, a mouse that made its way into my house. I have no idea of its fate after I released it in a bit of woods nearby. All I know is that I did not want its death to be at my hands.
You’d think this degree of squeamish sentimentality would make me “pro-life” — surely an [in utero] “human being” is more to be pitied than a mouse. So I don’t go around performing abortions.
But neither do I verbally berate or physically harass people who use conventional traps. Nor do I firebomb pest-control companies. I might go so far as to support legislation against glue traps, but not to the point of inciting violence if such legislation fails.
“There’s no equivalence between a human fetus and a mouse,” I hear you cry. Having already questioned your sense of equivalence, I won’t labor that point. I simply want to know why you think that, if you do. “Don’t be ridiculous” is certainly a response you could make, but I wouldn’t call it a meaningful exchange of views.
–TP
McTX: I do not agree with pro-life absolutists.
That’s commendable. This …
… the arrogance and incivility that marks both parties and their extremes …
… seems disingenuous.
“Pro-life absolutists” have been known to murder doctors, bomb clinics, and harass women seeking abortions. Unless you can recall equivalent “incivility” perpetrated by “pro-choice absolutists”, your commitment to both-sdes-ism is one of those things that makes “meaningful exchanges of views” difficult.
I have been known to jury-rig a trap to catch, unhurt, a mouse that made its way into my house. I have no idea of its fate after I released it in a bit of woods nearby. All I know is that I did not want its death to be at my hands.
You’d think this degree of squeamish sentimentality would make me “pro-life” — surely an [in utero] “human being” is more to be pitied than a mouse. So I don’t go around performing abortions.
But neither do I verbally berate or physically harass people who use conventional traps. Nor do I firebomb pest-control companies. I might go so far as to support legislation against glue traps, but not to the point of inciting violence if such legislation fails.
“There’s no equivalence between a human fetus and a mouse,” I hear you cry. Having already questioned your sense of equivalence, I won’t labor that point. I simply want to know why you think that, if you do. “Don’t be ridiculous” is certainly a response you could make, but I wouldn’t call it a meaningful exchange of views.
–TP
Trust Tony P to bring this back to civil and reasonable discussion. Not to mention clarity.
Trust Tony P to bring this back to civil and reasonable discussion. Not to mention clarity.
Clearly, you pay no attention to those with whom you disagree, and rather than give others the respect of a fair hearing, you default to gross intellectual dishonesty, declaring your enemies to be beyond the pale.
This week in ‘It’s All Projection’
Clearly, you pay no attention to those with whom you disagree, and rather than give others the respect of a fair hearing, you default to gross intellectual dishonesty, declaring your enemies to be beyond the pale.
This week in ‘It’s All Projection’
I’ve been listening to the sin-of-priders for years. The term “pro-life” was manufactured by Republican propagandists as a wedge issue, designed to divide the US into the good “pro-life” Republicans and the bad everyone else–thus negating all civil discussion McKinney claims to care about. It is an intentionally rude, marginalizing self-aggrandizing label, intended to demean other and intended to end discussion.
And out of that self-aggrandizing and thoughtless amorality came the claims that doctors are committing infanticide, abortion is murder–but not when a sin-of-prider says it isn’t–attacks on rape kits, the defense of the parental rights of rapists, the attacks on the morning after pills. Remember when Hilary suggested that we talk like civilized people about how to make abortion safe, legal, and rare? But the last thing the Republican party wants is civil discussion. Their polarization of issues into us good and you bad is deliberate.
I’ve been listening to the sin-of-priders for years. The term “pro-life” was manufactured by Republican propagandists as a wedge issue, designed to divide the US into the good “pro-life” Republicans and the bad everyone else–thus negating all civil discussion McKinney claims to care about. It is an intentionally rude, marginalizing self-aggrandizing label, intended to demean other and intended to end discussion.
And out of that self-aggrandizing and thoughtless amorality came the claims that doctors are committing infanticide, abortion is murder–but not when a sin-of-prider says it isn’t–attacks on rape kits, the defense of the parental rights of rapists, the attacks on the morning after pills. Remember when Hilary suggested that we talk like civilized people about how to make abortion safe, legal, and rare? But the last thing the Republican party wants is civil discussion. Their polarization of issues into us good and you bad is deliberate.
If you think glue-traps are cruel (which they are), having your cat hunt and kill mice is far worse.
Except that the cat enjoys it so. *sigh*
If you think glue-traps are cruel (which they are), having your cat hunt and kill mice is far worse.
Except that the cat enjoys it so. *sigh*
It is possible to think abortion is something that should be between a woman and her doctor even if you think elective abortion (after some point in a pregnancy) is wrong. That is to say that the state should mostly stay out of it, short of the sort of extreme circumstances no ethical doctor would be part of. The purely moral arguments and the legal arguments don’t have to overlap as much as they now do.
Where do you draw the line? I can’t say for sure, but we (society, the legal system, what have you) somehow manage to hold doctors and parents (and any number of other categories of people) responsible for things like neglect and negligence and misconduct without penalizing them for every imperfection or lack of success.
I don’t get how conservatives who are generally mistrustful of government think abortion is something the state should be so deep into regulating.
It is possible to think abortion is something that should be between a woman and her doctor even if you think elective abortion (after some point in a pregnancy) is wrong. That is to say that the state should mostly stay out of it, short of the sort of extreme circumstances no ethical doctor would be part of. The purely moral arguments and the legal arguments don’t have to overlap as much as they now do.
Where do you draw the line? I can’t say for sure, but we (society, the legal system, what have you) somehow manage to hold doctors and parents (and any number of other categories of people) responsible for things like neglect and negligence and misconduct without penalizing them for every imperfection or lack of success.
I don’t get how conservatives who are generally mistrustful of government think abortion is something the state should be so deep into regulating.
If you think glue-traps are cruel (which they are),
Decades ago, a Dallas movie theater was being renovated. Workmen applied an adhesive to the floor and left it to cure overnight. When they returned in the morning, their floor was steadfastly occupied by rats.
If you think glue-traps are cruel (which they are),
Decades ago, a Dallas movie theater was being renovated. Workmen applied an adhesive to the floor and left it to cure overnight. When they returned in the morning, their floor was steadfastly occupied by rats.
I think abortion is a moral issue. To me the moral issue is less the closer you get to a fertilized egg and more the closer you get to a viable baby. WHere to draw the line? That’s the difficult question. IF the sin of priders were actually concerned about the moral issue involved, we could have a civil conversation and could probably arrive at some conclusions such as making birth control available, encouraging morning after pills, and yes to rape kits. THen we would have the conversation about where to draw the line for the abortion. Six weeks? Fifteen weeks? Viability? And that’s when it comes down to choice because there is no objectively right answer.
But the Republican party didn’t want a civil discussion. They wanted division, sneering, demeaning, hating. TO party leaders, abortion was an opportunity to build up a base of voters who disrespected the rest of America–like bums on welfare, Hilary’s emails, Kerry’s medals, trans kids in bathrooms, BIG GOVERNMENT, SOCIALISM!!!!!!Hunter’s lap top, OH MY GOD WOKE!!!!! the war on Christmas and every other piece of bullshit they have ginned up to dupe people into voting for them.
I think abortion is a moral issue. To me the moral issue is less the closer you get to a fertilized egg and more the closer you get to a viable baby. WHere to draw the line? That’s the difficult question. IF the sin of priders were actually concerned about the moral issue involved, we could have a civil conversation and could probably arrive at some conclusions such as making birth control available, encouraging morning after pills, and yes to rape kits. THen we would have the conversation about where to draw the line for the abortion. Six weeks? Fifteen weeks? Viability? And that’s when it comes down to choice because there is no objectively right answer.
But the Republican party didn’t want a civil discussion. They wanted division, sneering, demeaning, hating. TO party leaders, abortion was an opportunity to build up a base of voters who disrespected the rest of America–like bums on welfare, Hilary’s emails, Kerry’s medals, trans kids in bathrooms, BIG GOVERNMENT, SOCIALISM!!!!!!Hunter’s lap top, OH MY GOD WOKE!!!!! the war on Christmas and every other piece of bullshit they have ginned up to dupe people into voting for them.
It looks like Iowa GOP primary voters generally do support “murder” in the first fifteen weeks. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-most-iowa-gop-caucusgoers-are-pro-life-and-traditional-conservatives/ar-AA1fPRXS?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=b6c4cea49c254ab8b5a121bed32d5bc8&ei=9
Of course, they are also against socialism while on Medicaid, hate big government while living in a state that depends on big government programs, and are anti-illegal immigrants while taking advantage of them for cheap labor in horrible jobs like meatpacking and slaughterhouses. THey claim to be concerned about the Constitution while supporting TRUmp. The world will be so much better off when they finally age out and die.
It looks like Iowa GOP primary voters generally do support “murder” in the first fifteen weeks. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-most-iowa-gop-caucusgoers-are-pro-life-and-traditional-conservatives/ar-AA1fPRXS?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=b6c4cea49c254ab8b5a121bed32d5bc8&ei=9
Of course, they are also against socialism while on Medicaid, hate big government while living in a state that depends on big government programs, and are anti-illegal immigrants while taking advantage of them for cheap labor in horrible jobs like meatpacking and slaughterhouses. THey claim to be concerned about the Constitution while supporting TRUmp. The world will be so much better off when they finally age out and die.
The world will be so much better off when they finally age out and die.
I’ll turn 70 in a couple of months. All of my adult life I’ve been told they’ll age out and die. Still waiting.
The world will be so much better off when they finally age out and die.
I’ll turn 70 in a couple of months. All of my adult life I’ve been told they’ll age out and die. Still waiting.
Well, it does propagate sexually (nature) and asexually (nurture).
Over here the main source for new neonazis used to be grandparents (old nazis) via outside-of-school indoctrination. Grandparents are often more popular with kids than parents and the generations flip traditionally between left and right (since kids rebel against their parents: nazis breed commies and vice versa).
Therefore it will be necessary to take out the right(wing) granny/gramps generation in time to prevent the infection of the young ones. And the rightwing with its ‘useless eaters deserve to die’ can with the proper wording be employed as the useful idiots to carry out that scheme.
Well, it does propagate sexually (nature) and asexually (nurture).
Over here the main source for new neonazis used to be grandparents (old nazis) via outside-of-school indoctrination. Grandparents are often more popular with kids than parents and the generations flip traditionally between left and right (since kids rebel against their parents: nazis breed commies and vice versa).
Therefore it will be necessary to take out the right(wing) granny/gramps generation in time to prevent the infection of the young ones. And the rightwing with its ‘useless eaters deserve to die’ can with the proper wording be employed as the useful idiots to carry out that scheme.
“Still waiting”
F’n COVID had one job. And just like many cheap chinese imported products, broke down when you need it to work.
I know I’m not buying any more crappy chinese bio-weapons, SHEESH!
The all-Amurrikan Brain Worms seem to keep going strong though.
“Still waiting”
F’n COVID had one job. And just like many cheap chinese imported products, broke down when you need it to work.
I know I’m not buying any more crappy chinese bio-weapons, SHEESH!
The all-Amurrikan Brain Worms seem to keep going strong though.
More stuff happening here just east of San Francisco (and about 25 miles north of me). Not in some rural area of a deep red state, but here in the suburbs in notoriously blue California.
‘Consequences across the board’: Criminal case dismissals mount amid Antioch police scandals‘Consequences across the board’: Criminal case dismissals mount amid Antioch police scandals
That’s dismissals of cases against criminals, due to massive police misconduct. So much for the excuse of getting dangerous criminals off the street.
As for the police officers themselves, a local (retired) Superior Court had this take:
And to think it all came out because they were reported to be cheating on college tests to get education-incentive pay increases. And when the Feds started investigating….
More stuff happening here just east of San Francisco (and about 25 miles north of me). Not in some rural area of a deep red state, but here in the suburbs in notoriously blue California.
‘Consequences across the board’: Criminal case dismissals mount amid Antioch police scandals‘Consequences across the board’: Criminal case dismissals mount amid Antioch police scandals
That’s dismissals of cases against criminals, due to massive police misconduct. So much for the excuse of getting dangerous criminals off the street.
As for the police officers themselves, a local (retired) Superior Court had this take:
And to think it all came out because they were reported to be cheating on college tests to get education-incentive pay increases. And when the Feds started investigating….
“Rocks in my bed …” and worms in my head.
“Rocks in my bed …” and worms in my head.
…Their interest in abortion never had anything to do with protecting babies…
I don’t know everyone’s motives, but I’m sure that there are many people who sincerely believe that a termination at any stage of pregnancy kills a person.
…Their interest in abortion never had anything to do with protecting babies…
I don’t know everyone’s motives, but I’m sure that there are many people who sincerely believe that a termination at any stage of pregnancy kills a person.
I’m sure that there are many people who sincerely believe that a termination at any stage of pregnancy kills a person.
Certainly there are such people. They should be quite easy to identify. They will also be vigorously advocating for health care for all pregnant women. They will be vigorously advocating for universal healthcare for children. Ditto adequate nutrition (at state expense, as necessary) for all children.
The sincerity of anyone not doing those things as well is definitely questionable.
I’m sure that there are many people who sincerely believe that a termination at any stage of pregnancy kills a person.
Certainly there are such people. They should be quite easy to identify. They will also be vigorously advocating for health care for all pregnant women. They will be vigorously advocating for universal healthcare for children. Ditto adequate nutrition (at state expense, as necessary) for all children.
The sincerity of anyone not doing those things as well is definitely questionable.
…but I’m sure that there are many people who sincerely believe that a termination at any stage of pregnancy kills a person.
I don’t doubt that one bit…but consider when they start handwaving about 6 weeks, or 15 weeks, or rape and incest exceptions. Becuase when the rubber hits the road, they are demanding the right of the State, not the woman, to decide when these “little innocent persons” (their term, not mine) can be murdered in cold blood.
But somehow “abortion on demand” (again, their term, not mine) is immoral.
I heartily spit in their general direction.
…but I’m sure that there are many people who sincerely believe that a termination at any stage of pregnancy kills a person.
I don’t doubt that one bit…but consider when they start handwaving about 6 weeks, or 15 weeks, or rape and incest exceptions. Becuase when the rubber hits the road, they are demanding the right of the State, not the woman, to decide when these “little innocent persons” (their term, not mine) can be murdered in cold blood.
But somehow “abortion on demand” (again, their term, not mine) is immoral.
I heartily spit in their general direction.
The sincerity of anyone not doing those things as well is definitely questionable.
Not to mention that of those embracing “rape or incest” exceptions.
I understand that failing to do so is even more politically toxic than other kinds of abortion restrictions. But if you sincerely believe that we’re talking about killing a person, why should that person suffer for the misdeeds of the rapist? Not really a morally defensible position for someone cloaking their position in supposed morality.
The sincerity of anyone not doing those things as well is definitely questionable.
Not to mention that of those embracing “rape or incest” exceptions.
I understand that failing to do so is even more politically toxic than other kinds of abortion restrictions. But if you sincerely believe that we’re talking about killing a person, why should that person suffer for the misdeeds of the rapist? Not really a morally defensible position for someone cloaking their position in supposed morality.
(Yes, I realize bobbyp said much the same earlier. But it’s one of my personal hot buttons.)
(Yes, I realize bobbyp said much the same earlier. But it’s one of my personal hot buttons.)
WJ, did you read the article? The authors call for a national limit allowing abortion in the first 15 weeks of pregnancy
No, they don’t. The actual phrasing — “15-week minimum standard to protect babies in the womb” — is bizarrely ambiguous for an op-ed exhorting Republicans to be forthright about their abortion proposals. But the context of the paragraph makes it clear that they are proposing a national ban on abortion beyond 15 weeks, with no proscription on states implementing further restrictions. Indeed, they celebrate those restrictions later in the article.
WJ, did you read the article? The authors call for a national limit allowing abortion in the first 15 weeks of pregnancy
No, they don’t. The actual phrasing — “15-week minimum standard to protect babies in the womb” — is bizarrely ambiguous for an op-ed exhorting Republicans to be forthright about their abortion proposals. But the context of the paragraph makes it clear that they are proposing a national ban on abortion beyond 15 weeks, with no proscription on states implementing further restrictions. Indeed, they celebrate those restrictions later in the article.
Leah Libresco Sargent is pretty much the morally consistent pro lifer as far as I can tell.
https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2022/05/09/supreme-court-abortion-roe-242954
You can Google her— there’s more where that came from. I stumbled across her writing a few years ago, not in connection with abortion.
This is an issue I am deeply uncomfortable with and generally avoid, so I don’t know what the average pro lifer is like, but certainly Republican politicians seem like people who fit the stereotype of not caring once the baby pops out.
Leah Libresco Sargent is pretty much the morally consistent pro lifer as far as I can tell.
https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2022/05/09/supreme-court-abortion-roe-242954
You can Google her— there’s more where that came from. I stumbled across her writing a few years ago, not in connection with abortion.
This is an issue I am deeply uncomfortable with and generally avoid, so I don’t know what the average pro lifer is like, but certainly Republican politicians seem like people who fit the stereotype of not caring once the baby pops out.
I’m always wishing that, when someone proposes a 15 week threshold, they would be asked: Based on what? Why not 14 weeks or 16 weeks? (Or any other number?)
I’d offer odds against them doing more than stammer.
I’m always wishing that, when someone proposes a 15 week threshold, they would be asked: Based on what? Why not 14 weeks or 16 weeks? (Or any other number?)
I’d offer odds against them doing more than stammer.
I don’t feel comfortable with debates on abortion either, and I really don’t think any man should be. But Sargent came up on my radar because there was a language question that came up when she wrote an op-ed in the NYT about her ectopic pregnancy. It’s here, but behind the paywall
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/04/opinion/ectopic-pregnancy-roe-abortion.html
This WaPo discusses how her language is problematic
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/12/new-york-times-essay-ectopic-pregnancy-error/
This Wonkette article is unsurprisingly scathing, but has chunks of the op-ed if you can’t get behind the paywall.
https://www.wonkette.com/p/in-post-dobbs-chaos-nyt-gives-white-woman-platform-to-lie-about-ectopic-pregnancies
I don’t feel comfortable with debates on abortion either, and I really don’t think any man should be. But Sargent came up on my radar because there was a language question that came up when she wrote an op-ed in the NYT about her ectopic pregnancy. It’s here, but behind the paywall
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/04/opinion/ectopic-pregnancy-roe-abortion.html
This WaPo discusses how her language is problematic
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/12/new-york-times-essay-ectopic-pregnancy-error/
This Wonkette article is unsurprisingly scathing, but has chunks of the op-ed if you can’t get behind the paywall.
https://www.wonkette.com/p/in-post-dobbs-chaos-nyt-gives-white-woman-platform-to-lie-about-ectopic-pregnancies
I have had family visiting and other time pressures, and even if I hadn’t, I wouldn’t be particularly eager to enter this discussion (which has been mostly among men, about something that goes on entirely inside women’s bodies).
Yep. Women’s bodies. Remember those?
Complexifying Pro Bono’s comment to bring it at least the tiniest bit more in line with the full reality of what we’re talking about:
I’m sure that there are many people who sincerely believe that a termination at any stage of pregnancy kills a person THAT IS INSIDE ANOTHER PERSON’S BODY…
…another person who, you would think, also had some rights in the situation, perhaps even the right to be the one making the decisions about what’s going on inside her own body, rather than having those decisions made by state legislators (to oversimplify). (And stopping this line of rant right here.)
Of course, even that formulation (a “person” inside another person’s body) is a great courtesy when we’re talking about people who believe that an unimplanted fertilized egg is a “person,” and that therefore some forms of birth control are, in their formulation, forms of abortion.
McK and Pro Bono write as though this is about philosophical beliefs — nice and bloodless and impersonal. Funny, what I’m thinking about is the destruction of women’s health care in red states (google Idaho), the (in effect) criminalization of miscarriages, the intrusion into privacy, autonomy, and medical practice that many new red state laws represent, and the fact that some states are trying to criminalize things that people do in other places — as though the state of Texas owns the bodies of the women who happen to live there, no matter where on the planet those women happen to be when they make certain decisions and choices, and do certain things.
I haven’t had time to write or post pictures here, dearly as I would like to, so you can take it as a corollary that I haven’t read anyone’s links. I have, however, been reading a lot on this subject, when I can see through my fury and grief over what has been done already and where it may lead. There may be people of good will who cherish sincere beliefs about, for example, what an embryo is, and about how that necessitates the erasure of the rights and welfare of the women inside whom the embryos exist that is currently going on in a lot of states. If their good will doesn’t extend to the full complexity of the situation (e.g. see the list of concerns in wj’s 3:59 on 8/27), I really don’t give a shit about their sincere beliefs, other than to be sure that they have to be defeated at the ballot box (at a minimum) to stop their sincere beliefs from ruining other people’s lives.
I have had family visiting and other time pressures, and even if I hadn’t, I wouldn’t be particularly eager to enter this discussion (which has been mostly among men, about something that goes on entirely inside women’s bodies).
Yep. Women’s bodies. Remember those?
Complexifying Pro Bono’s comment to bring it at least the tiniest bit more in line with the full reality of what we’re talking about:
I’m sure that there are many people who sincerely believe that a termination at any stage of pregnancy kills a person THAT IS INSIDE ANOTHER PERSON’S BODY…
…another person who, you would think, also had some rights in the situation, perhaps even the right to be the one making the decisions about what’s going on inside her own body, rather than having those decisions made by state legislators (to oversimplify). (And stopping this line of rant right here.)
Of course, even that formulation (a “person” inside another person’s body) is a great courtesy when we’re talking about people who believe that an unimplanted fertilized egg is a “person,” and that therefore some forms of birth control are, in their formulation, forms of abortion.
McK and Pro Bono write as though this is about philosophical beliefs — nice and bloodless and impersonal. Funny, what I’m thinking about is the destruction of women’s health care in red states (google Idaho), the (in effect) criminalization of miscarriages, the intrusion into privacy, autonomy, and medical practice that many new red state laws represent, and the fact that some states are trying to criminalize things that people do in other places — as though the state of Texas owns the bodies of the women who happen to live there, no matter where on the planet those women happen to be when they make certain decisions and choices, and do certain things.
I haven’t had time to write or post pictures here, dearly as I would like to, so you can take it as a corollary that I haven’t read anyone’s links. I have, however, been reading a lot on this subject, when I can see through my fury and grief over what has been done already and where it may lead. There may be people of good will who cherish sincere beliefs about, for example, what an embryo is, and about how that necessitates the erasure of the rights and welfare of the women inside whom the embryos exist that is currently going on in a lot of states. If their good will doesn’t extend to the full complexity of the situation (e.g. see the list of concerns in wj’s 3:59 on 8/27), I really don’t give a shit about their sincere beliefs, other than to be sure that they have to be defeated at the ballot box (at a minimum) to stop their sincere beliefs from ruining other people’s lives.
PS People have sincere beliefs about all sorts of things that range from the harmlessly loony to the malevolently murderous. There are a lot of “sincere beliefs” to which I don’t have to pay the slightest attention, unless the people who cherish them try to make me run *my* life in accordance with them.
‘Cause guess what?!? I have some sincere beliefs too.
Or don’t they count? Especially when we’re talking about something going on entirely inside my own body….
PS People have sincere beliefs about all sorts of things that range from the harmlessly loony to the malevolently murderous. There are a lot of “sincere beliefs” to which I don’t have to pay the slightest attention, unless the people who cherish them try to make me run *my* life in accordance with them.
‘Cause guess what?!? I have some sincere beliefs too.
Or don’t they count? Especially when we’re talking about something going on entirely inside my own body….
once the baby pops out
I’ve had two babies. What happened when they were born bore no resemblance whatsoever to “popping out.”
Also, I actually had a role in the process, it wasn’t just the babies taking care of business.
once the baby pops out
I’ve had two babies. What happened when they were born bore no resemblance whatsoever to “popping out.”
Also, I actually had a role in the process, it wasn’t just the babies taking care of business.
What’s going on in this country right now goes far beyond the question of when a fetus becomes a “person” and (though there are plenty of people who stop there in their “sincere beliefs”) how to balance that person’s rights against the mother’s. That issue is really just a smokescreen behind which to hide a wider goal, the naming of which, since I really have to go back to bed, I will leave as an exercise for the reader.
What’s going on in this country right now goes far beyond the question of when a fetus becomes a “person” and (though there are plenty of people who stop there in their “sincere beliefs”) how to balance that person’s rights against the mother’s. That issue is really just a smokescreen behind which to hide a wider goal, the naming of which, since I really have to go back to bed, I will leave as an exercise for the reader.
The popping out phrase was not meant to be a description of childbirth, but part of a criticism of Republican politicians who ostensibly care about life but don’t.
The popping out phrase was not meant to be a description of childbirth, but part of a criticism of Republican politicians who ostensibly care about life but don’t.
Donald — I more or less knew that, or assumed it, because I always assume you write in good faith.
But I wanted to bring the whole discussion more in line with the often bloody reality of the subject being discussed so . . . bloodlessly.
Donald — I more or less knew that, or assumed it, because I always assume you write in good faith.
But I wanted to bring the whole discussion more in line with the often bloody reality of the subject being discussed so . . . bloodlessly.
The “ popping out” phrase was not meant to describe childbirth but was a part of a sentence criticizing Republican politicians who are ostensibly pro life, but are in reality the opposite. I apologize for the flippancy.
The “ popping out” phrase was not meant to describe childbirth but was a part of a sentence criticizing Republican politicians who are ostensibly pro life, but are in reality the opposite. I apologize for the flippancy.
Sargent’s reply on the NYT column—
https://otherfeminisms.substack.com/p/my-ectopic-pregnancies
I realize that on an extremely controversial topic ( I usually focus on other topics as people here know and saw this constantly) that if you cite Person A’s views or post a link, the reflexive response is to find another link that shows that A is problematic. I have done it myself.
What I liked about Sargent in the link I provided was her attempt to build bridges— I am pro choice because banning abortions is Handmaid’s Tale stuff. But the fetus develops into a person, it’s hard to say when, and gray areas make many people uneasy. So I am glad to see people like Sargent on that side who want much more of a support system and more health care for everyone and tries to find common ground where it can be found. It won’t be found with most Republican politicians, but they only represent a minority.
Sargent’s reply on the NYT column—
https://otherfeminisms.substack.com/p/my-ectopic-pregnancies
I realize that on an extremely controversial topic ( I usually focus on other topics as people here know and saw this constantly) that if you cite Person A’s views or post a link, the reflexive response is to find another link that shows that A is problematic. I have done it myself.
What I liked about Sargent in the link I provided was her attempt to build bridges— I am pro choice because banning abortions is Handmaid’s Tale stuff. But the fetus develops into a person, it’s hard to say when, and gray areas make many people uneasy. So I am glad to see people like Sargent on that side who want much more of a support system and more health care for everyone and tries to find common ground where it can be found. It won’t be found with most Republican politicians, but they only represent a minority.
I agree with every word Janie said, other than the “popping out” aspect on which I cannot speak. I do, though, appreciate it when people on the other side of this question are thoughtful, reasonable, civil and give due weight to the immutable fact that the fetus (or foetus, as we would say) develops in, and has many effects on, the body of the woman.
Regarding “in vitro” versus “in utero”, this debate will change when embryos can be gestated and carried to term outside a woman’s body.
I agree with every word Janie said, other than the “popping out” aspect on which I cannot speak. I do, though, appreciate it when people on the other side of this question are thoughtful, reasonable, civil and give due weight to the immutable fact that the fetus (or foetus, as we would say) develops in, and has many effects on, the body of the woman.
Regarding “in vitro” versus “in utero”, this debate will change when embryos can be gestated and carried to term outside a woman’s body.
Just wait and we will return to times when mothers were not legally related to their own children (once also the traditional* argument for matricide being far less evil than patricide; also ranging below fratricide btw). And as a legal alien to the unborn a woman naturally has no say about it.
*enough to become a plot point in classical Greek tragedy
Just wait and we will return to times when mothers were not legally related to their own children (once also the traditional* argument for matricide being far less evil than patricide; also ranging below fratricide btw). And as a legal alien to the unborn a woman naturally has no say about it.
*enough to become a plot point in classical Greek tragedy
Regarding “in vitro” versus “in utero”, this debate will change when embryos can be gestated and carried to term outside a woman’s body.
See the sci-fi (?) novel Woman on the Edge of Time, by Marge Piercy, where that’s how new children are brought into the world. Three adults have to agree to parent any new child before it is gestated, and two of the three have to agree to nurse it. (There are hormone treatments that allow anyone and everyone to do that.) Children come of age at about 14 and then there’s some travel to give the new adults some time away from their parents (so everyone can adjust), and to see different cultures/villages and decide where they want to settle.
It was decades ago when I read it, so I don’t know what I would think of it now. And the gestation and parenting thing is only a detail; it’s not that the whole story is centered around that, although that system is pivotal to the culture being portrayed.
Regarding “in vitro” versus “in utero”, this debate will change when embryos can be gestated and carried to term outside a woman’s body.
See the sci-fi (?) novel Woman on the Edge of Time, by Marge Piercy, where that’s how new children are brought into the world. Three adults have to agree to parent any new child before it is gestated, and two of the three have to agree to nurse it. (There are hormone treatments that allow anyone and everyone to do that.) Children come of age at about 14 and then there’s some travel to give the new adults some time away from their parents (so everyone can adjust), and to see different cultures/villages and decide where they want to settle.
It was decades ago when I read it, so I don’t know what I would think of it now. And the gestation and parenting thing is only a detail; it’s not that the whole story is centered around that, although that system is pivotal to the culture being portrayed.
@Hartmut — that’s the direction some people want us to be going in now, and it’s barely a secret. And it’s not all that far back to go.
Within my lifetime, a married woman in the US couldn’t get a credit card in her own name. In early Maine law, a single woman could be the executrix of a will, but if she then got married she was literally as if dead (I forget the Latin phrase), and that was one of the few roles (maybe the only one?) that her husband didn’t assume with the marriage. Maine abolished the legal distinction between spouses in I think 1967, and it was one of the earlier states to do it. (Ask me how I know this.) (Some other day, though.)
On and on.
@Hartmut — that’s the direction some people want us to be going in now, and it’s barely a secret. And it’s not all that far back to go.
Within my lifetime, a married woman in the US couldn’t get a credit card in her own name. In early Maine law, a single woman could be the executrix of a will, but if she then got married she was literally as if dead (I forget the Latin phrase), and that was one of the few roles (maybe the only one?) that her husband didn’t assume with the marriage. Maine abolished the legal distinction between spouses in I think 1967, and it was one of the earlier states to do it. (Ask me how I know this.) (Some other day, though.)
On and on.
See the sci-fi (?) novel Woman on the Edge of Time, by Marge Piercy, where that’s how new children are brought into the world.
From distant memory, I think that was also how children were grown in Huxley’s Brave New World. Not to mention in many more recent sci-fi things too, like e.g. the Vorkosigan saga.
See the sci-fi (?) novel Woman on the Edge of Time, by Marge Piercy, where that’s how new children are brought into the world.
From distant memory, I think that was also how children were grown in Huxley’s Brave New World. Not to mention in many more recent sci-fi things too, like e.g. the Vorkosigan saga.
and gray areas make many people uneasy.
Possibly. I would respond by pointing out there are many “gray areas” in the moral universe, where most people get through them one way or the other without the slightest qualm.
Such is life (cough, cough).
and gray areas make many people uneasy.
Possibly. I would respond by pointing out there are many “gray areas” in the moral universe, where most people get through them one way or the other without the slightest qualm.
Such is life (cough, cough).
JanieM, as fas as I remember the unambiguous equality clause of the (West) German constitution (of 1949) was not fully reflected in civil law until 1973 (the year of my birth). Before that husbands had to agree to ‘major’ aquisitions (e.g. a washing machine) and could terminate their wife’s emplyoment at will (and she needed his permission to get a job or to open a bank account).
Btw, the equality clause was fought over fervently when the constitution was discussed and the 4 ‘mothers’ of the constitution (= the 4 female members of the convention) had to make a public ruckus and essentially use blackmail to get it through.
Another mark of shame were attempts by the Christian churches to prevent the conscientious objection clause claiming that there could be no conceivable circumstances where it would be morally justifiable to refuse to fight as a soldier even for the worst possible regime.
JanieM, as fas as I remember the unambiguous equality clause of the (West) German constitution (of 1949) was not fully reflected in civil law until 1973 (the year of my birth). Before that husbands had to agree to ‘major’ aquisitions (e.g. a washing machine) and could terminate their wife’s emplyoment at will (and she needed his permission to get a job or to open a bank account).
Btw, the equality clause was fought over fervently when the constitution was discussed and the 4 ‘mothers’ of the constitution (= the 4 female members of the convention) had to make a public ruckus and essentially use blackmail to get it through.
Another mark of shame were attempts by the Christian churches to prevent the conscientious objection clause claiming that there could be no conceivable circumstances where it would be morally justifiable to refuse to fight as a soldier even for the worst possible regime.
JanieM, I believe without reservation that a woman should own her own body.
JanieM, I believe without reservation that a woman should own her own body.
I generally don’t wade into abortion discussions because I think that it can often be a language problem, but people get very upset when you suggest that their beliefs might be altered by ‘mere words’. For example, if the word ‘pregnancy’ in the phrase ectopic pregnancy were not there, replaced by some other term, would it spark the same kind of reaction? I have to think that it wouldn’t.
Interestingly, while we had some abortion discussions, they were largely led by Hilzoy or Dr Science posting and in recent years, I don’t think we have discussed it. Perhaps that is because “we” (for various values of the pronoun) realize that the population here means that it might be better to not weigh in on these things.
I generally don’t wade into abortion discussions because I think that it can often be a language problem, but people get very upset when you suggest that their beliefs might be altered by ‘mere words’. For example, if the word ‘pregnancy’ in the phrase ectopic pregnancy were not there, replaced by some other term, would it spark the same kind of reaction? I have to think that it wouldn’t.
Interestingly, while we had some abortion discussions, they were largely led by Hilzoy or Dr Science posting and in recent years, I don’t think we have discussed it. Perhaps that is because “we” (for various values of the pronoun) realize that the population here means that it might be better to not weigh in on these things.
@Pro Bono — thank you for saying that.
@Pro Bono — thank you for saying that.
That was weird— I somehow posted almost the same comment twice, one with an apology added which was supposed to be there in the first place. Not sure how I pulled that off.
Anyway, the main reason I tend to avoid expressing my gray area thoughts on this is that I am male and while I don’t usually think identity should play a big role in whether one talks about a given subject, on this one I am reticent, probably for good reasons.
But Sargent’s approach of trying to get people talking to the other side seems like a good one to try on a lot of subjects. If she has any success on this one then it could work for anything.
That was weird— I somehow posted almost the same comment twice, one with an apology added which was supposed to be there in the first place. Not sure how I pulled that off.
Anyway, the main reason I tend to avoid expressing my gray area thoughts on this is that I am male and while I don’t usually think identity should play a big role in whether one talks about a given subject, on this one I am reticent, probably for good reasons.
But Sargent’s approach of trying to get people talking to the other side seems like a good one to try on a lot of subjects. If she has any success on this one then it could work for anything.
Now for something completely different…
A blog where I do some of the odder bits of maintenance has been plagued for many, many months by a troll. They drop by a few days each week and leave a handful of annoying comments. The editors tried to use the built-in WordPress tools to filter the troll’s comments, with basically no success. I decided it looked like my kind of finicky little problem.
So, learn some more WordPress and some more PHP. Write a data collection tool. Collect data, work through what patterns are there that could identify the troll’s comments from others. Write a first cut at a filter to throw those into moderation when posted. It didn’t work particularly well. More research, write a second version. I installed it over the weekend and anticipate it will catch at least nine out of ten. So far today, it’s five for five. No false positives either. At this point, I’m mostly curious about whether the troll will expend effort to get around the filter, or just go elsewhere.
I continue to be torn about PHP. I’m a long-time Perl programmer and PHP is sort-of Perl, with a lot of the useful syntax and functionality tossed out. The scoping rules for names seem… odd. It turned out to be rather easy to break the site, generating the WordPress White Screen of Death.
Now for something completely different…
A blog where I do some of the odder bits of maintenance has been plagued for many, many months by a troll. They drop by a few days each week and leave a handful of annoying comments. The editors tried to use the built-in WordPress tools to filter the troll’s comments, with basically no success. I decided it looked like my kind of finicky little problem.
So, learn some more WordPress and some more PHP. Write a data collection tool. Collect data, work through what patterns are there that could identify the troll’s comments from others. Write a first cut at a filter to throw those into moderation when posted. It didn’t work particularly well. More research, write a second version. I installed it over the weekend and anticipate it will catch at least nine out of ten. So far today, it’s five for five. No false positives either. At this point, I’m mostly curious about whether the troll will expend effort to get around the filter, or just go elsewhere.
I continue to be torn about PHP. I’m a long-time Perl programmer and PHP is sort-of Perl, with a lot of the useful syntax and functionality tossed out. The scoping rules for names seem… odd. It turned out to be rather easy to break the site, generating the WordPress White Screen of Death.
People may have caught them, but I try to delete them as soon as I see them, we get posts every few weeks that say ‘Thanks for the interesting post. If you are interested in [some totally unrelated commercial product website], please check it out’ They usually come in 2 or 3 and I assume they are more of a test to see if anyone is watching the comments.
I just put them in the spam folder as soon as I can, but I’m wondering why this seems like a worthwhile strategy for advertising?
People may have caught them, but I try to delete them as soon as I see them, we get posts every few weeks that say ‘Thanks for the interesting post. If you are interested in [some totally unrelated commercial product website], please check it out’ They usually come in 2 or 3 and I assume they are more of a test to see if anyone is watching the comments.
I just put them in the spam folder as soon as I can, but I’m wondering why this seems like a worthwhile strategy for advertising?
lj – I do the same thing if I see them before you do, and have the same questions about how any kind of spam works at this point. (Email spam, spam phone calls, all of it.)
lj – I do the same thing if I see them before you do, and have the same questions about how any kind of spam works at this point. (Email spam, spam phone calls, all of it.)
@lj
WordPress does a pretty good job of screening out that sort of spam. These comments are at least semi on topic, from a person or someone is wasting a quite good LLM.
@JanieM
I sometimes wonder how much of the ongoing spam is rogue software running on tens of millions of internet of things processors, endlessly sending out messages and creating copies of itself, and the originators can’t shut it down either.
@lj
WordPress does a pretty good job of screening out that sort of spam. These comments are at least semi on topic, from a person or someone is wasting a quite good LLM.
@JanieM
I sometimes wonder how much of the ongoing spam is rogue software running on tens of millions of internet of things processors, endlessly sending out messages and creating copies of itself, and the originators can’t shut it down either.
Michael — interesting speculation. You will see from the following that I am not very knowledgeable about this stuff….
I seem to be one of the last people on earth who uses an internet address from my internet provider (DSL through my local phone company, though I canceled my landline several years ago). I bring the email into Outlook, which I am used to from my working days.
But I use webmail when i travel, and to set up spam filters and delete spam on occasion. One thing that is especially aggravating is that i get a lot of spam ostensibly sent from my own email address. It just seems bizarre to me that that can happen, but I’m too busy/lazy to ask my provider about it.
Rumor has it that gmail uses better spam filters than I have access to, or that my provider uses, but I have so many online accounts using current email address that I dread ever having to change them all. I should have put them with my college address (email forwarding for life), but that has its own drawbacks.
Michael — interesting speculation. You will see from the following that I am not very knowledgeable about this stuff….
I seem to be one of the last people on earth who uses an internet address from my internet provider (DSL through my local phone company, though I canceled my landline several years ago). I bring the email into Outlook, which I am used to from my working days.
But I use webmail when i travel, and to set up spam filters and delete spam on occasion. One thing that is especially aggravating is that i get a lot of spam ostensibly sent from my own email address. It just seems bizarre to me that that can happen, but I’m too busy/lazy to ask my provider about it.
Rumor has it that gmail uses better spam filters than I have access to, or that my provider uses, but I have so many online accounts using current email address that I dread ever having to change them all. I should have put them with my college address (email forwarding for life), but that has its own drawbacks.
What really irritates me are the spam text messages. It appears the various RWNJ bots are under the impression that I would not only vote for their whackos, but actually give them money. (If I could figure out how to send them counterfeit Confederate currency, I might donate that….)
What really irritates me are the spam text messages. It appears the various RWNJ bots are under the impression that I would not only vote for their whackos, but actually give them money. (If I could figure out how to send them counterfeit Confederate currency, I might donate that….)
I rarely get spam text messages, but when I do they tend to include links (not even theoretically tempting, because I almost never use my phone to access the internet). More times than not they have to do with sex. Also irritating is that unlike spam calls, they don’t have a phone # attached to them, so I can’t block the #s. Then again, the #s would probably be spoofed anyhow…….
I rarely get spam text messages, but when I do they tend to include links (not even theoretically tempting, because I almost never use my phone to access the internet). More times than not they have to do with sex. Also irritating is that unlike spam calls, they don’t have a phone # attached to them, so I can’t block the #s. Then again, the #s would probably be spoofed anyhow…….
wj: “(If I could figure out how to send them counterfeit Confederate currency, I might donate that….)”
I’d drop a Giant Stone Wheel on them.
wj: “(If I could figure out how to send them counterfeit Confederate currency, I might donate that….)”
I’d drop a Giant Stone Wheel on them.
Snarki, yes but they’d appreciate the Confederate money. Even if they’d prefer (they think!) going all the way back to the Stone Age.
Snarki, yes but they’d appreciate the Confederate money. Even if they’d prefer (they think!) going all the way back to the Stone Age.
Three for three on the troll’s comments this morning, and no false positives. The last of the comments was only two words and struck me as more of a test poke than anything. I’ll settle for small victories. Maybe go out for lunch with plenty of salt and grease to celebrate :^)
Three for three on the troll’s comments this morning, and no false positives. The last of the comments was only two words and struck me as more of a test poke than anything. I’ll settle for small victories. Maybe go out for lunch with plenty of salt and grease to celebrate :^)
Like the reactionaries of (most) ages, they would like to keep modern amenities while returning to a perceived better age (while lamenting that the modern poor have it better than the kings of old).
Like the reactionaries of (most) ages, they would like to keep modern amenities while returning to a perceived better age (while lamenting that the modern poor have it better than the kings of old).
Oldsters complaining about “kids these days…” has been part of human culture for all of recorded history, and probably much longer.
Why, these kids with their newfangled sissified “bows and arrows” never could have taken down a cave bear with a hand-axe, amirite?
Oldsters complaining about “kids these days…” has been part of human culture for all of recorded history, and probably much longer.
Why, these kids with their newfangled sissified “bows and arrows” never could have taken down a cave bear with a hand-axe, amirite?
Apropos of almost nothing, I had the random thought that “Giant Stone Wheels” would be a great ‘band name’.
But those f’n rat-weasels in the Rolling Stones got their first. Sheesh.
Apropos of almost nothing, I had the random thought that “Giant Stone Wheels” would be a great ‘band name’.
But those f’n rat-weasels in the Rolling Stones got their first. Sheesh.
Truly an impressive collection of Spam, Michael. Thanks for taking care of it.
Truly an impressive collection of Spam, Michael. Thanks for taking care of it.
Kids these days! Strutting around on their hind legs like they’re such hot stuff. Hell, most of them can barely climb a tree!
Kids these days! Strutting around on their hind legs like they’re such hot stuff. Hell, most of them can barely climb a tree!
“I remember when I was young, we walked on all fours like nature intended. We were strong and agile, and we could move through the forest with ease. But now, these young whippersnappers are all about walking upright. They think it makes them look more sophisticated, but I think it just makes them look silly.
I mean, what’s the point of walking upright? It’s not like it’s any faster or more efficient. And it’s certainly not more practical. I mean, try climbing a tree while you’re walking on your hind legs. It’s impossible!
I just don’t understand what these kids are thinking. They’re throwing away all the advantages of being quadrupedal, and for what? A little bit of extra height? It’s ridiculous.
I tell you, things were better in my day. We were stronger, we were faster, and we were more in touch with nature. These kids today are all about their gadgets and their technology. They don’t know what it’s like to live in the real world.
I just hope that one day they’ll realize the error of their ways. Until then, I’ll just have to sit back and watch them make fools of themselves.”
—Google Bard 🙂
“I remember when I was young, we walked on all fours like nature intended. We were strong and agile, and we could move through the forest with ease. But now, these young whippersnappers are all about walking upright. They think it makes them look more sophisticated, but I think it just makes them look silly.
I mean, what’s the point of walking upright? It’s not like it’s any faster or more efficient. And it’s certainly not more practical. I mean, try climbing a tree while you’re walking on your hind legs. It’s impossible!
I just don’t understand what these kids are thinking. They’re throwing away all the advantages of being quadrupedal, and for what? A little bit of extra height? It’s ridiculous.
I tell you, things were better in my day. We were stronger, we were faster, and we were more in touch with nature. These kids today are all about their gadgets and their technology. They don’t know what it’s like to live in the real world.
I just hope that one day they’ll realize the error of their ways. Until then, I’ll just have to sit back and watch them make fools of themselves.”
—Google Bard 🙂
HIGHLY amusing!
HIGHLY amusing!
From Salon via Yahoo:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/did-dumbing-america-reagan-trump-130501647.html
Some excerpts:
I doubt many here don’t already know most of this, but I thought it would cheer everyone up! 🙁
From Salon via Yahoo:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/did-dumbing-america-reagan-trump-130501647.html
Some excerpts:
I doubt many here don’t already know most of this, but I thought it would cheer everyone up! 🙁
Every tool used to legitimize and verify information in the last 40 years has evaporated under the push to make money.
All aside from the rest of that rant, you could substitute almost any public good or human need (housing and health care come to mind at the top of the list) of things that have evaporated or been viciously undercut in the last 40 years under the push to make money.
Beyond that, how about some suggestions for getting us un-screwed?
Every tool used to legitimize and verify information in the last 40 years has evaporated under the push to make money.
All aside from the rest of that rant, you could substitute almost any public good or human need (housing and health care come to mind at the top of the list) of things that have evaporated or been viciously undercut in the last 40 years under the push to make money.
Beyond that, how about some suggestions for getting us un-screwed?
I doubt many here don’t already know most of this, but I thought it would cheer everyone up
You remind me of the last line of the wonderful William Matthews Poem Ending with a Line from Dante:
I first read it in the New Yorker many years ago, and prefer that early name to the later published version, “Grief”. Come to think of it, the whole poem is rather germane:
Snow coming in parallel to the street,
a cab spinning its tires (a rising whine
like a domestic argument, and then
the words get said that never get forgot),
slush and backed-up runoff waters at each
corner, clogged buses smelling of wet wool…
The acrid anger of the homeless swells
like wet rice. This slop is where I live, bitch,
a sogged panhandler shrieks to whom it may
concern. None who can hear him stall or turn,
there’s someone’s misery in all we earn.
But like a burr in a dog’s coat his rage
has borrowed legs. We bring it home. It lives
like kin among the angers of the house,
and has the same sad zinc taste in the mouth:
And I have told you this to make you grieve.
I doubt many here don’t already know most of this, but I thought it would cheer everyone up
You remind me of the last line of the wonderful William Matthews Poem Ending with a Line from Dante:
I first read it in the New Yorker many years ago, and prefer that early name to the later published version, “Grief”. Come to think of it, the whole poem is rather germane:
Snow coming in parallel to the street,
a cab spinning its tires (a rising whine
like a domestic argument, and then
the words get said that never get forgot),
slush and backed-up runoff waters at each
corner, clogged buses smelling of wet wool…
The acrid anger of the homeless swells
like wet rice. This slop is where I live, bitch,
a sogged panhandler shrieks to whom it may
concern. None who can hear him stall or turn,
there’s someone’s misery in all we earn.
But like a burr in a dog’s coat his rage
has borrowed legs. We bring it home. It lives
like kin among the angers of the house,
and has the same sad zinc taste in the mouth:
And I have told you this to make you grieve.
However, since I have no desire to make anybody here grieve, I too would be delighted to see any suggestions for getting us unscrewed (while being fully aware that suggestions are not always welcomed….)!
However, since I have no desire to make anybody here grieve, I too would be delighted to see any suggestions for getting us unscrewed (while being fully aware that suggestions are not always welcomed….)!
Make everyone take nous’ class?
Make everyone take nous’ class?
hsh — yes, I think that’s a great idea, especially for everyone who writes opinion pieces for the public!!!!!
It’s that group that I was mostly aiming my sarcasm about suggestions at — they are so full of themselves, even when they are ostensibly criticizing themselves. And anyhow, who is “we”? 😉
hsh — yes, I think that’s a great idea, especially for everyone who writes opinion pieces for the public!!!!!
It’s that group that I was mostly aiming my sarcasm about suggestions at — they are so full of themselves, even when they are ostensibly criticizing themselves. And anyhow, who is “we”? 😉
Wouldn’t we have a few screws loose, if we unscrewed?
Wouldn’t we have a few screws loose, if we unscrewed?
I don’t know if there’s a German equivalent, but I’ve heard people say “unloosen” in the context of removing nuts, bolts, screws, etc. It’s an unfortunate combination of “loosen” and “unscrew” that puts a word at odds with its intended meaning (sort of like the beloved “irregardless”).
I don’t know if there’s a German equivalent, but I’ve heard people say “unloosen” in the context of removing nuts, bolts, screws, etc. It’s an unfortunate combination of “loosen” and “unscrew” that puts a word at odds with its intended meaning (sort of like the beloved “irregardless”).
Back to a different topic —
“Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said the state can prosecute people who help women travel out of state for abortions in response to a lawsuit filed by a pro-abortion group and owners of women’s clinics.”
One response:
Gavin Newsom
@GavinNewsom
California will NOT cooperate with any state that attempts to prosecute women or doctors for receiving or providing reproductive care.
*****
Just for now, one article on ways that states are tracking, or may track, women’s health data. (N.b. also tracking high school girls’ periods to make sure they fit into the acceptable-to-some-people definition of “girl.”)
I think we should have a contest to see who can come up with the most apt suggestions for ways to track men’s bodily functions as well, especially sex-related ones, since, shockingly enough, those are implicated….
Oh, wait, that would be an utterly egregious invasion of privacy, you say?
Back to a different topic —
“Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said the state can prosecute people who help women travel out of state for abortions in response to a lawsuit filed by a pro-abortion group and owners of women’s clinics.”
One response:
Gavin Newsom
@GavinNewsom
California will NOT cooperate with any state that attempts to prosecute women or doctors for receiving or providing reproductive care.
*****
Just for now, one article on ways that states are tracking, or may track, women’s health data. (N.b. also tracking high school girls’ periods to make sure they fit into the acceptable-to-some-people definition of “girl.”)
I think we should have a contest to see who can come up with the most apt suggestions for ways to track men’s bodily functions as well, especially sex-related ones, since, shockingly enough, those are implicated….
Oh, wait, that would be an utterly egregious invasion of privacy, you say?
And on the good news side of the ledger, GA Gov. Kemp shuts down his party’s attempt to find a way to axe Fani Willis.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/georgia-gov-brian-kemp-dismisses-gop-calls-special-session-impeach-da-rcna102781
And on the good news side of the ledger, GA Gov. Kemp shuts down his party’s attempt to find a way to axe Fani Willis.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/georgia-gov-brian-kemp-dismisses-gop-calls-special-session-impeach-da-rcna102781
The troll I am engaged with puts considerable effort into it. Multiple comments per day, some lengthy, mostly on-topic in the sense that they don’t put election-fraud comments on an economics subthread, and literate inasmuch as the grammar n*zis wouldn’t have a lot to complain about. I had a dream last night that s/he is an old retired geek — like myself — and it’s their hobby. And all I’m doing right now is making the hobby more interesting.
The troll I am engaged with puts considerable effort into it. Multiple comments per day, some lengthy, mostly on-topic in the sense that they don’t put election-fraud comments on an economics subthread, and literate inasmuch as the grammar n*zis wouldn’t have a lot to complain about. I had a dream last night that s/he is an old retired geek — like myself — and it’s their hobby. And all I’m doing right now is making the hobby more interesting.
In German the term is “eine Schraube locker haben” (to have a screw loose(ned)). But I know of no related term for “screwed” in the sense of ‘stuck in a bad situation’. “schrauben” is a vulgar term for having sexual intercourse from the male perspective. “alte Schraube” (old screw) is a peiorative term for an older woman (with no lower limit for what ‘old’ actually signifies: in essence an ageist ‘too old to screw’)
In German the term is “eine Schraube locker haben” (to have a screw loose(ned)). But I know of no related term for “screwed” in the sense of ‘stuck in a bad situation’. “schrauben” is a vulgar term for having sexual intercourse from the male perspective. “alte Schraube” (old screw) is a peiorative term for an older woman (with no lower limit for what ‘old’ actually signifies: in essence an ageist ‘too old to screw’)
Hartmut made me go look. English has lots of descriptive uses of screw, derived from multiple languages*. From his example of having a screw loose, to having one’s head screwed on right. Absent-mindedness in the form of “if my head weren’t screwed on I’d lose it.” Various uses based on sex, generally involving the notion that things are not entirely consensual. Very early usage of “being screwed” to mean in a bad situation as a reference to thumbscrews.
* As someone said, “Other languages borrow words. English pursues other languages down dark alleys, bangs them over the head, and rifles their pockets for vocabulary.” I always thought there was another subtle joke there, since in English “rifle their pockets”, “rifle the ball”, and “rifle the barrel” mean three very different things.
Hartmut made me go look. English has lots of descriptive uses of screw, derived from multiple languages*. From his example of having a screw loose, to having one’s head screwed on right. Absent-mindedness in the form of “if my head weren’t screwed on I’d lose it.” Various uses based on sex, generally involving the notion that things are not entirely consensual. Very early usage of “being screwed” to mean in a bad situation as a reference to thumbscrews.
* As someone said, “Other languages borrow words. English pursues other languages down dark alleys, bangs them over the head, and rifles their pockets for vocabulary.” I always thought there was another subtle joke there, since in English “rifle their pockets”, “rifle the ball”, and “rifle the barrel” mean three very different things.
I always thought there was another subtle joke there, since in English “rifle their pockets”, “rifle the ball”, and “rifle the barrel” mean three very different things.
Possibly stolen from three different languages, then mispronounced into a single word.
No, I’m not checking, but seems plausible.
I always thought there was another subtle joke there, since in English “rifle their pockets”, “rifle the ball”, and “rifle the barrel” mean three very different things.
Possibly stolen from three different languages, then mispronounced into a single word.
No, I’m not checking, but seems plausible.
Seconds of research suggest that rifle is a single word whose meanings have diverged.
Seconds of research suggest that rifle is a single word whose meanings have diverged.
Not having an Académie Française to constrain us, English is free to evolve, adapt, and change generally. (Not to mention scooping up words from any and every language we come across. Mispronounced, usually, but borrowed words nonetheless.)
Not having an Académie Française to constrain us, English is free to evolve, adapt, and change generally. (Not to mention scooping up words from any and every language we come across. Mispronounced, usually, but borrowed words nonetheless.)
Well, the English got into that habit in 1066 at the latest.
In Germany we have no equivalent of the Académie Française either. These days it’s mostly English words that get adopted and harnessed by German grammar rules (with occasional debates about the details e.g. is it gedownloaded or downgeloaded? It’s superfluous since there is a direct German translation ‘runtergeladen’ with no doubt about the position of the ‘ge’).
What’s bad is what is called “Denglis(c)h” (gratuitous mix of German and English words) in particular, if used by companies like German Rail who manage to get understood by neither German or English natives.
We had something similar before 1914 with French. When WW1 started there were campaigns to extirpate anything French from the language with whole dictionairies printed of ‘proper’ replacements. Some were simply ridiculous. In the end the net effect was positive because it led to the removal of most actually superfluous “Frenchisms” while keeping those that were firmly established and/or had no natural German equivalent. A second attempt by the Nazis (and a third by the GDR) failed because the useful work was already done.
I guess with anglisms it will work the same way in the long run. Taking what is useful but avoiding what can be naturally done without or use both in parallel (like Computer and Rechner).
Well, the English got into that habit in 1066 at the latest.
In Germany we have no equivalent of the Académie Française either. These days it’s mostly English words that get adopted and harnessed by German grammar rules (with occasional debates about the details e.g. is it gedownloaded or downgeloaded? It’s superfluous since there is a direct German translation ‘runtergeladen’ with no doubt about the position of the ‘ge’).
What’s bad is what is called “Denglis(c)h” (gratuitous mix of German and English words) in particular, if used by companies like German Rail who manage to get understood by neither German or English natives.
We had something similar before 1914 with French. When WW1 started there were campaigns to extirpate anything French from the language with whole dictionairies printed of ‘proper’ replacements. Some were simply ridiculous. In the end the net effect was positive because it led to the removal of most actually superfluous “Frenchisms” while keeping those that were firmly established and/or had no natural German equivalent. A second attempt by the Nazis (and a third by the GDR) failed because the useful work was already done.
I guess with anglisms it will work the same way in the long run. Taking what is useful but avoiding what can be naturally done without or use both in parallel (like Computer and Rechner).
“Seconds of research suggest that rifle is a single word whose meanings have diverged..”
In medieval French, though, with rifler being both to scratch or graze (adopted for the grooves in a rifle barrel), and to plunder.
“Seconds of research suggest that rifle is a single word whose meanings have diverged..”
In medieval French, though, with rifler being both to scratch or graze (adopted for the grooves in a rifle barrel), and to plunder.
Now towns are getting in on it, with ordinances that say it’s a crime to drive on their roads in the process of helping someone get an abortion.
Now towns are getting in on it, with ordinances that say it’s a crime to drive on their roads in the process of helping someone get an abortion.
Are they going to make it a crime to drive on their roads in the process of going somewhere else to do anything that happens to be illegal in their town but not somewhere else? How are they going to know… What kind of spying does it take to carry out an agenda like this? The same kind of spying (half-imaginary, half-terrifying) that DeSantis would need to carry out his law that says that people have to use the bathroom of the gender on their original birth certificate.
Are they going to make it a crime to drive on their roads in the process of going somewhere else to do anything that happens to be illegal in their town but not somewhere else? How are they going to know… What kind of spying does it take to carry out an agenda like this? The same kind of spying (half-imaginary, half-terrifying) that DeSantis would need to carry out his law that says that people have to use the bathroom of the gender on their original birth certificate.
OK, we need hovercraft abortion taxis disguised as eel transporters…or walker tanks.
Beat them on technicalities: “Officer, I am not driving ON your road, I am hovering over it. And my pal is ON the road but technically walking not driving.”
OK, we need hovercraft abortion taxis disguised as eel transporters…or walker tanks.
Beat them on technicalities: “Officer, I am not driving ON your road, I am hovering over it. And my pal is ON the road but technically walking not driving.”
CLEARLY, people need to be ‘chipped’ with their birth gender, so that bathroom doors can have appropriate electronic locks.
Do it to the fundies first, since they are the ones that have their knickers in a twist about the issue.
CLEARLY, people need to be ‘chipped’ with their birth gender, so that bathroom doors can have appropriate electronic locks.
Do it to the fundies first, since they are the ones that have their knickers in a twist about the issue.
Barcode on the forehead and the palms.
Hey, the fundies always claim that this is the end times, so let’s give them the dreaded mark of the beast. A dose of their own medicine!
Barcode on the forehead and the palms.
Hey, the fundies always claim that this is the end times, so let’s give them the dreaded mark of the beast. A dose of their own medicine!
@Snarki: yes. I don’t think people who think they want these things have thought through the implications. Logically, you can’t check anyone’s gender going into a public bathroom without checking everyone’s gender going into a public bathroom.
Of course, that’s not how they (the fundies, let’s say, the DeSantis crowd) expect it to work. They expect that they can challenge anyone who violates their cramped notions of how people should look and behave according to their norms. But obviously no one is going to [have a right to] challenge them, because they’re “normal.”
*****
As to ordinances making it a crime to drive on a public street for one’s own purposes: I think there’s a process that has gone on for lo these many years, where “abortion is bad abortion is bad abortion is bad” has been drummed into people’s heads (certain people…), and so now it’s possible to lead them quite easily into taking measures far, far beyond simply banning abortion, to things that are actually loonily dystopian and surely (some of them) unconstitutional.
@Snarki: yes. I don’t think people who think they want these things have thought through the implications. Logically, you can’t check anyone’s gender going into a public bathroom without checking everyone’s gender going into a public bathroom.
Of course, that’s not how they (the fundies, let’s say, the DeSantis crowd) expect it to work. They expect that they can challenge anyone who violates their cramped notions of how people should look and behave according to their norms. But obviously no one is going to [have a right to] challenge them, because they’re “normal.”
*****
As to ordinances making it a crime to drive on a public street for one’s own purposes: I think there’s a process that has gone on for lo these many years, where “abortion is bad abortion is bad abortion is bad” has been drummed into people’s heads (certain people…), and so now it’s possible to lead them quite easily into taking measures far, far beyond simply banning abortion, to things that are actually loonily dystopian and surely (some of them) unconstitutional.
The same kind of spying (half-imaginary, half-terrifying) that DeSantis would need to carry out his law that says that people have to use the bathroom of the gender on their original birth certificate.
I wouldn’t expect spying as such. Rather, when they arrest someone for something else, the DNA sample gets a quick glance for X/Y chromosomes. Then, if they don’t like you for other reasons, they start looking for people (or, these days, video) showing you using the “wrong” restroom — just to give some add on charges for your rap sheet.
Doubtless some enthusiastic legislator will be crafting a law, if it isn’t in place already, to require anyone who is found to have violated the bathroom bill to henceforth register as a sex offender. (With, naturally, an exception for members of the legislature or the clergy. Later to be amended to specify that only Christian clergy are exempt.)
The same kind of spying (half-imaginary, half-terrifying) that DeSantis would need to carry out his law that says that people have to use the bathroom of the gender on their original birth certificate.
I wouldn’t expect spying as such. Rather, when they arrest someone for something else, the DNA sample gets a quick glance for X/Y chromosomes. Then, if they don’t like you for other reasons, they start looking for people (or, these days, video) showing you using the “wrong” restroom — just to give some add on charges for your rap sheet.
Doubtless some enthusiastic legislator will be crafting a law, if it isn’t in place already, to require anyone who is found to have violated the bathroom bill to henceforth register as a sex offender. (With, naturally, an exception for members of the legislature or the clergy. Later to be amended to specify that only Christian clergy are exempt.)
Barcode on the forehead and the palms.
Hey, the fundies always claim that this is the end times, so let’s give them the dreaded mark of the beast. A dose of their own medicine!
While we’re at it, specify that the barcode for the fundies (and nobody else) shall be mandated to start with 666.
Barcode on the forehead and the palms.
Hey, the fundies always claim that this is the end times, so let’s give them the dreaded mark of the beast. A dose of their own medicine!
While we’re at it, specify that the barcode for the fundies (and nobody else) shall be mandated to start with 666.
wj, “optimistic” as usual. (Not that your alternative scenario for public bathrooms is a happy one either.)
General article with stats about harassment.
The Florida law has provisions for reporting people who shouldn’t be in the bathroom to employees…..
The bill itself.
An article explaining it.
People getting harrassed… for their race, in this case. Just one of I’m sure thousands of instances that take place in the land of the free (where you’ve got to be brave every day. And yes, Maine is not immune.
wj, “optimistic” as usual. (Not that your alternative scenario for public bathrooms is a happy one either.)
General article with stats about harassment.
The Florida law has provisions for reporting people who shouldn’t be in the bathroom to employees…..
The bill itself.
An article explaining it.
People getting harrassed… for their race, in this case. Just one of I’m sure thousands of instances that take place in the land of the free (where you’ve got to be brave every day. And yes, Maine is not immune.
The bill itself.
Anthropic Claude-2-100k has some concerns about the bill.
The bill itself.
Anthropic Claude-2-100k has some concerns about the bill.
JanieM, it sometimes occurs to me that I am able to maintain my optimism by consistently (and often seriously) underestimating just how nasty these folks are. Sigh.
JanieM, it sometimes occurs to me that I am able to maintain my optimism by consistently (and often seriously) underestimating just how nasty these folks are. Sigh.
@wj — I think a lot of us have done that in one way or another. Kind of a vast “it can’t happen here” thing. It *can* happen here, there, everywhere, and everywhen.
@wj — I think a lot of us have done that in one way or another. Kind of a vast “it can’t happen here” thing. It *can* happen here, there, everywhere, and everywhen.
Also, we seem to repeatedly define “it” too narrowly, at least when it comes to details. A failure of imagination, perhaps. (Which probably speaks well of us, but….)
Also, we seem to repeatedly define “it” too narrowly, at least when it comes to details. A failure of imagination, perhaps. (Which probably speaks well of us, but….)
Open thread, so, I thought this fascinating, about the relationship between “narrative” and “history”, using a very interesting recent example about the origins of an important element of the industrial revolution.
https://open.substack.com/pub/ianleslie/p/stories-are-bad-for-your-intelligence?r=w2vx&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
In Metahistory, his classic work of historiography, Hayden White argued that historians are always drawing on literary forms, like tragedy or comedy, whether they realise it or not. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but if you’re a historian you have to be aware of it; otherwise the story writes you rather than the other way around. Moralising narratives are particularly potent. Historians of the British empire are currently substituting one simplistic narrative for another in popular books.
Open thread, so, I thought this fascinating, about the relationship between “narrative” and “history”, using a very interesting recent example about the origins of an important element of the industrial revolution.
https://open.substack.com/pub/ianleslie/p/stories-are-bad-for-your-intelligence?r=w2vx&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
In Metahistory, his classic work of historiography, Hayden White argued that historians are always drawing on literary forms, like tragedy or comedy, whether they realise it or not. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but if you’re a historian you have to be aware of it; otherwise the story writes you rather than the other way around. Moralising narratives are particularly potent. Historians of the British empire are currently substituting one simplistic narrative for another in popular books.
Interesting stats on certain kinds of gun deaths and incidents in the US in 2023 so far, as revealed on C4 News tonight:
1206 children killed
480 mass shootings
Interesting stats on certain kinds of gun deaths and incidents in the US in 2023 so far, as revealed on C4 News tonight:
1206 children killed
480 mass shootings
The Ian Leslie substack article is interesting and I think he is correct to assert that Jelf’s examination of the sources creates a lot of problems for Bulstrode’s claims.
The journal in which Bulstrode published seems legit and is associated with Drexel University, not one of those faux journals run through a think tank or industry group, so my guess is that the people who peer reviewed the article looked at the claims being made and chose to exercise a degree of faith that the evidence was being accurately and sufficiently represented in Bulstrode’s writing.
Bulstrode is one of those people who strings together paragraphs made up of claims from disparate sources, making no effort to connect the points or justify the connections. That is a practice that always makes me suspicious because it can be a sign of cherry picking.
I’m not surprised that the journal did not check all of Bulstrode’s references. She has 149 references in her 40 page paper. That’s a lot of reading to get through for what is likely an unpaid gig as a peer reviewer done as a courtesy and “service” to the field. (For comparison, I had about that number of references in my dissertation, which was well over 200 pages in length, and my reading for the dissertation took months of work.) Not many
reviewer can do a thorough enough job to do what Jelf does with the speed that Jelf does it. It takes motivation, expertise, free time, and an open research agenda. The usual reviewers have the expertise, but little of the rest, being engaged in their own research projects.
As far as the larger points raised in the substack, I’m unconvinced by Leslie’s cautionary tale about the dangers of narrative, not so much because I disagree with his point, as because I think it’s uncomfortably grounded and developed in that Hayden White reference, and I’m not entirely sure that Leslie is in control of exactly what he means by “narrative” and “story” in this context. It sounds to me like his central admonition here is something like “be suspicious of metanarratives” (or grandes histoires, but that point seems more in line with the work of Lyotard and the postmodernists than it does with Hayden White, who comes from the Northrop Frye structuralist tradition.
Every historian that I know is well aware of the dangers of getting caught up in one’s narrative. That’s a pretty basic element in early grad school training. But likewise, I’m not sure how one is supposed to 1) escape or eschew narrative and 2) get people to give a shit about what you are saying without resorting to some form of narrative to promote engagement. Not in history, anyway. What the fuck is that even supposed to look like? I mean it’s no accident that we have “history” and “histoire” here. What we are really saying is “do better, ethically, with the story you choose to tell.”
Final note in this very long return from a week of driving and avoiding fights with the in-laws – I am 100% in line with Leslie’s suspicion of Ted Talks. It didn’t take more than one round of Ted Talks before the talks became a formulaic genre that used a few common rhetorical moves (the basic misunderstanding of “experts” and “the secret key to understanding a complex issue” etc.) to produce a feeling of revelation. Meanwhile, these forms wallpaper over huge gaps and transitions, and smooth over what should be moments where we dig in with critical questions. I really hate them. They are intellectual fast food.
The Ian Leslie substack article is interesting and I think he is correct to assert that Jelf’s examination of the sources creates a lot of problems for Bulstrode’s claims.
The journal in which Bulstrode published seems legit and is associated with Drexel University, not one of those faux journals run through a think tank or industry group, so my guess is that the people who peer reviewed the article looked at the claims being made and chose to exercise a degree of faith that the evidence was being accurately and sufficiently represented in Bulstrode’s writing.
Bulstrode is one of those people who strings together paragraphs made up of claims from disparate sources, making no effort to connect the points or justify the connections. That is a practice that always makes me suspicious because it can be a sign of cherry picking.
I’m not surprised that the journal did not check all of Bulstrode’s references. She has 149 references in her 40 page paper. That’s a lot of reading to get through for what is likely an unpaid gig as a peer reviewer done as a courtesy and “service” to the field. (For comparison, I had about that number of references in my dissertation, which was well over 200 pages in length, and my reading for the dissertation took months of work.) Not many
reviewer can do a thorough enough job to do what Jelf does with the speed that Jelf does it. It takes motivation, expertise, free time, and an open research agenda. The usual reviewers have the expertise, but little of the rest, being engaged in their own research projects.
As far as the larger points raised in the substack, I’m unconvinced by Leslie’s cautionary tale about the dangers of narrative, not so much because I disagree with his point, as because I think it’s uncomfortably grounded and developed in that Hayden White reference, and I’m not entirely sure that Leslie is in control of exactly what he means by “narrative” and “story” in this context. It sounds to me like his central admonition here is something like “be suspicious of metanarratives” (or grandes histoires, but that point seems more in line with the work of Lyotard and the postmodernists than it does with Hayden White, who comes from the Northrop Frye structuralist tradition.
Every historian that I know is well aware of the dangers of getting caught up in one’s narrative. That’s a pretty basic element in early grad school training. But likewise, I’m not sure how one is supposed to 1) escape or eschew narrative and 2) get people to give a shit about what you are saying without resorting to some form of narrative to promote engagement. Not in history, anyway. What the fuck is that even supposed to look like? I mean it’s no accident that we have “history” and “histoire” here. What we are really saying is “do better, ethically, with the story you choose to tell.”
Final note in this very long return from a week of driving and avoiding fights with the in-laws – I am 100% in line with Leslie’s suspicion of Ted Talks. It didn’t take more than one round of Ted Talks before the talks became a formulaic genre that used a few common rhetorical moves (the basic misunderstanding of “experts” and “the secret key to understanding a complex issue” etc.) to produce a feeling of revelation. Meanwhile, these forms wallpaper over huge gaps and transitions, and smooth over what should be moments where we dig in with critical questions. I really hate them. They are intellectual fast food.
Many interesting points, nous. And well reminded on “history” and “histoire” (or, as my current Italian duolingo goes “history” and “storia”). I think Leslie is really saying “Be super-vigilant in policing your automatic reflex towards narratives”, not “You don’t need narrative to put your theory or account across”. As for the inadequately checked peer review, I bet your explanation is right, but it is very unfortunate in the context of a world where there is no longer any safe place to get something resembling “the truth” or facts.
Many interesting points, nous. And well reminded on “history” and “histoire” (or, as my current Italian duolingo goes “history” and “storia”). I think Leslie is really saying “Be super-vigilant in policing your automatic reflex towards narratives”, not “You don’t need narrative to put your theory or account across”. As for the inadequately checked peer review, I bet your explanation is right, but it is very unfortunate in the context of a world where there is no longer any safe place to get something resembling “the truth” or facts.
The world is awash with factoids, feeding audiences eager to confirm their prejudices. The right is worse, perhaps because they are shorter on actual facts to support them, but I am willing to “both sides” this.
Information technology makes it a bit easier to test the truth of a narrative, but much easier to spread falsehoods.
The only way I can see to address the problem is to impose modest restrictions on freedom of speech. One should be able to say what one chooses, but one should have to speak reasonably accurately about the state of knowledge.
“I believe the election was stolen” – OK.
“I have the following evidence that the election was stolen” – OK, so long as the evidence cited is factual.
“The election was stolen” – not OK.
The world is awash with factoids, feeding audiences eager to confirm their prejudices. The right is worse, perhaps because they are shorter on actual facts to support them, but I am willing to “both sides” this.
Information technology makes it a bit easier to test the truth of a narrative, but much easier to spread falsehoods.
The only way I can see to address the problem is to impose modest restrictions on freedom of speech. One should be able to say what one chooses, but one should have to speak reasonably accurately about the state of knowledge.
“I believe the election was stolen” – OK.
“I have the following evidence that the election was stolen” – OK, so long as the evidence cited is factual.
“The election was stolen” – not OK.
@Pro Bono: and just who is going to police such a system, and how, given statistics like the ones below?
I remember hearing numbers like this on an NPR show a few years ago, in the context of a discussion about preventing abusive or dishonest content. They used the example of one of the eastern European conflicts that was going on at the time. I don’t remember the details of the example, but taking a current situation instead, Ukraine might upload some straightforward content that Russia would then get taken down by alleging that the content was dishonest (or abusive, or whatever). How much staff would YouTube need to police such a system? And who says *they* would get it right?
@Pro Bono: and just who is going to police such a system, and how, given statistics like the ones below?
I remember hearing numbers like this on an NPR show a few years ago, in the context of a discussion about preventing abusive or dishonest content. They used the example of one of the eastern European conflicts that was going on at the time. I don’t remember the details of the example, but taking a current situation instead, Ukraine might upload some straightforward content that Russia would then get taken down by alleging that the content was dishonest (or abusive, or whatever). How much staff would YouTube need to police such a system? And who says *they* would get it right?
Back in the 1990s when I was doing prototypes of multimedia streaming over IP networks and giving talks about it, one of the things I said was it wouldn’t be a matter of there not being enough content, it would be a firehose sort of problem. How were you going to sort through a vast amount of content and find good things, skip over the enormous amount of crap, avoid (or not) all the illegal copies. I told people if they wanted to get rich, write a piece of software that did a good job of both search and filter and worked only on behalf of the user.
Naive researcher that I was, I didn’t think about the flip side: the idea worked for unreasonable people too.
Back in the 1990s when I was doing prototypes of multimedia streaming over IP networks and giving talks about it, one of the things I said was it wouldn’t be a matter of there not being enough content, it would be a firehose sort of problem. How were you going to sort through a vast amount of content and find good things, skip over the enormous amount of crap, avoid (or not) all the illegal copies. I told people if they wanted to get rich, write a piece of software that did a good job of both search and filter and worked only on behalf of the user.
Naive researcher that I was, I didn’t think about the flip side: the idea worked for unreasonable people too.
By a curious coincidence, I was at a UCL graduation ceremony this evening, in which Professor Geraint Rees, the first speaker, listed UCL achievements in the last year, including in his shortlist Bulstrode’s paper. I’ve sent him an email protesting that the paper is not worthy.
By a curious coincidence, I was at a UCL graduation ceremony this evening, in which Professor Geraint Rees, the first speaker, listed UCL achievements in the last year, including in his shortlist Bulstrode’s paper. I’ve sent him an email protesting that the paper is not worthy.
How interesting that he was unaware. Do let us know, if you have no objection, if and how he responds.
How interesting that he was unaware. Do let us know, if you have no objection, if and how he responds.
He’s sent a friendly reply promising to read Jelf’s paper.
He’s sent a friendly reply promising to read Jelf’s paper.
I’m really late coming back to this, and for that I apologize. Wonkie wrote:
I think abortion is a moral issue. To me the moral issue is less the closer you get to a fertilized egg and more the closer you get to a viable baby. WHere to draw the line? That’s the difficult question. IF the sin of priders were actually concerned about the moral issue involved, we could have a civil conversation and could probably arrive at some conclusions such as making birth control available, encouraging morning after pills, and yes to rape kits. THen we would have the conversation about where to draw the line for the abortion. Six weeks? Fifteen weeks? Viability? And that’s when it comes down to choice because there is no objectively right answer.
But the Republican party didn’t want a civil discussion.
I don’t recall Democrats calling for the civil discussion you–very reasonably–propose above, nor do I see you lambasting Democrats for cynically labeling themselves pro-choice and using euphemism after euphemism in place of the word abortion. IMO, self-labeling as Pro-Choice is not cynical, nor is self-labeling as Pro-Life. The various euphemisms, OTOH, I’m not so sure about.
HSH–conservatives support any number of laws that protect people and their property. The friction lies is defining–in the case of abortion–whether/when/if a fetus is a person with rights. Even Roe recognized, implicitly, that third trimester fetuses may be accorded state protection. Except for absolutists who would allow terminating a child’s life while in the birth canal, the vast majority of Americans-and the rest of the world-recognize limits on abortion as the pregnancy progresses.
WJ/BP–ok, fine. However, your contempt for those who have differing views is a bit egotistical, quite frankly, i.e. you have it all figured out and there is no room for debate. That you cannot comprehend that rape/health/incest shifts the balance underpinning the pro-life position actually may not be such a great reflection on you, sorry to say.
From JanieM:
Yep. Women’s bodies. Remember those?
Complexifying Pro Bono’s comment to bring it at least the tiniest bit more in line with the full reality of what we’re talking about:
I’m sure that there are many people who sincerely believe that a termination at any stage of pregnancy kills a person THAT IS INSIDE ANOTHER PERSON’S BODY…
…another person who, you would think, also had some rights in the situation, perhaps even the right to be the one making the decisions about what’s going on inside her own body, rather than having those decisions made by state legislators (to oversimplify). (And stopping this line of rant right here.)
Actually, I do understand your position. Bodily autonomy is a right the law should respect. The “but”–there always is a “but”–the friction lies in the fact that we are talking about two bodies, not one. And, the be more precise, I am focused on a human life once conceived, not birth control or morning after or what have you (all of which I actively support).
LJ–I’m going to revert to my earlier policy of occasionally addressing your substantive comments/positions, but ignoring your personal shittiness. I’ve concluded that you are a mildly disodered narcissist.
I’m really late coming back to this, and for that I apologize. Wonkie wrote:
I think abortion is a moral issue. To me the moral issue is less the closer you get to a fertilized egg and more the closer you get to a viable baby. WHere to draw the line? That’s the difficult question. IF the sin of priders were actually concerned about the moral issue involved, we could have a civil conversation and could probably arrive at some conclusions such as making birth control available, encouraging morning after pills, and yes to rape kits. THen we would have the conversation about where to draw the line for the abortion. Six weeks? Fifteen weeks? Viability? And that’s when it comes down to choice because there is no objectively right answer.
But the Republican party didn’t want a civil discussion.
I don’t recall Democrats calling for the civil discussion you–very reasonably–propose above, nor do I see you lambasting Democrats for cynically labeling themselves pro-choice and using euphemism after euphemism in place of the word abortion. IMO, self-labeling as Pro-Choice is not cynical, nor is self-labeling as Pro-Life. The various euphemisms, OTOH, I’m not so sure about.
HSH–conservatives support any number of laws that protect people and their property. The friction lies is defining–in the case of abortion–whether/when/if a fetus is a person with rights. Even Roe recognized, implicitly, that third trimester fetuses may be accorded state protection. Except for absolutists who would allow terminating a child’s life while in the birth canal, the vast majority of Americans-and the rest of the world-recognize limits on abortion as the pregnancy progresses.
WJ/BP–ok, fine. However, your contempt for those who have differing views is a bit egotistical, quite frankly, i.e. you have it all figured out and there is no room for debate. That you cannot comprehend that rape/health/incest shifts the balance underpinning the pro-life position actually may not be such a great reflection on you, sorry to say.
From JanieM:
Yep. Women’s bodies. Remember those?
Complexifying Pro Bono’s comment to bring it at least the tiniest bit more in line with the full reality of what we’re talking about:
I’m sure that there are many people who sincerely believe that a termination at any stage of pregnancy kills a person THAT IS INSIDE ANOTHER PERSON’S BODY…
…another person who, you would think, also had some rights in the situation, perhaps even the right to be the one making the decisions about what’s going on inside her own body, rather than having those decisions made by state legislators (to oversimplify). (And stopping this line of rant right here.)
Actually, I do understand your position. Bodily autonomy is a right the law should respect. The “but”–there always is a “but”–the friction lies in the fact that we are talking about two bodies, not one. And, the be more precise, I am focused on a human life once conceived, not birth control or morning after or what have you (all of which I actively support).
LJ–I’m going to revert to my earlier policy of occasionally addressing your substantive comments/positions, but ignoring your personal shittiness. I’ve concluded that you are a mildly disodered narcissist.
WJ/BP–ok, fine. However, your contempt for those who have differing views is a bit egotistical, quite frankly, i.e. you have it all figured out and there is no room for debate. That you cannot comprehend that rape/health/incest shifts the balance underpinning the pro-life position actually may not be such a great reflection on you, sorry to say.
McK — I think you have missed the point. My ccontempt is not for those with different views, but for those whose stated views are nonsense. I may disagree with someone, and I certainly do, who says “no abortions and no exceptions.” But I freely admit that theirs is at least a consistent position.
But IF, as their statements contend, the “pro-life” position is all about concern for the baby, then it simply cannot be squared with rape or incest exceptions. The baby is still a baby, and totally innocent of the misdeed in question.
It is, quite transparently, an attempt to avoid admitting that “We don’t actually care about the baby. We’re all about blaming/controlling the mother. And, in cases of rape or incest, she wasn’t at fault.”
If you can come up with a way to reconcile “concern for the baby” with “except in cases of rape or incest”, I’d be happy to hear it. But my limited intelligence can’t.
WJ/BP–ok, fine. However, your contempt for those who have differing views is a bit egotistical, quite frankly, i.e. you have it all figured out and there is no room for debate. That you cannot comprehend that rape/health/incest shifts the balance underpinning the pro-life position actually may not be such a great reflection on you, sorry to say.
McK — I think you have missed the point. My ccontempt is not for those with different views, but for those whose stated views are nonsense. I may disagree with someone, and I certainly do, who says “no abortions and no exceptions.” But I freely admit that theirs is at least a consistent position.
But IF, as their statements contend, the “pro-life” position is all about concern for the baby, then it simply cannot be squared with rape or incest exceptions. The baby is still a baby, and totally innocent of the misdeed in question.
It is, quite transparently, an attempt to avoid admitting that “We don’t actually care about the baby. We’re all about blaming/controlling the mother. And, in cases of rape or incest, she wasn’t at fault.”
If you can come up with a way to reconcile “concern for the baby” with “except in cases of rape or incest”, I’d be happy to hear it. But my limited intelligence can’t.
Except for absolutists who would allow terminating a child’s life while in the birth canal, the vast majority of Americans-and the rest of the world-recognize limits on abortion as the pregnancy progresses.
Leaving aside the question of whether children are ever in birth canals, my point was about the role of the state. Short of a doctor knowingly aborting a viable fetus when a delivery would pose a normal risk to the life of the woman delivering or performing an abortion against the wishes of the pregnant woman (maybe other scenarios I’m not thinking of), I’m not sure why it can’t be up to the woman and the doctor.
I would need to be convinced that the state has a compelling interest in preventing doctors from performing late-term abortions without good reason, by which I mean it’s a demonstrable problem that needs addressing.
Except for absolutists who would allow terminating a child’s life while in the birth canal, the vast majority of Americans-and the rest of the world-recognize limits on abortion as the pregnancy progresses.
Leaving aside the question of whether children are ever in birth canals, my point was about the role of the state. Short of a doctor knowingly aborting a viable fetus when a delivery would pose a normal risk to the life of the woman delivering or performing an abortion against the wishes of the pregnant woman (maybe other scenarios I’m not thinking of), I’m not sure why it can’t be up to the woman and the doctor.
I would need to be convinced that the state has a compelling interest in preventing doctors from performing late-term abortions without good reason, by which I mean it’s a demonstrable problem that needs addressing.
And the more I think about it, there’s a lot of space between what I’m describing and the kinds of laws that are being passed exclusively in states controlled by Republicans/”conservatives.” They’re allowing highly invasive uses of state power in poorly considered and draconian ways.
And the more I think about it, there’s a lot of space between what I’m describing and the kinds of laws that are being passed exclusively in states controlled by Republicans/”conservatives.” They’re allowing highly invasive uses of state power in poorly considered and draconian ways.
But IF, as their statements contend, the “pro-life” position is all about concern for the baby, then it simply cannot be squared with rape or incest exceptions. The baby is still a baby, and totally innocent of the misdeed in question.
Well, what may be nonsense to you and BP may make sense to others and, with respect, your logic does not hold up at all. Most rational citizens are concerned with preserving and protecting human life, which is why we have laws against murder to include negligent homicide. However, we also recognize exceptions for justifiable homicide. We even have a constitution that allows for the death penalty assuming due process of law. So, protection/preservation of life is the general default, but it is not the sole, invariable position. You know this to be true. Therefore, the life in the womb is not wholly protected from external, competing and occasionally conflicting concerns. Of course any child is blameless, but that isn’t the issue. Pro-life absolutists may take a black and white stance, but I don’t and I’m pretty sure I’m not an outlier. I’ve used the word ‘balance’ over and over for the simple reason that the ‘abortion yes, abortion no’ question is not cut and dried. There are two sides–at least two–and both have merit. I come down on the child’s side, assuming a relatively normal pregnancy, but I don’t hate or disparage people who answer the question differently.
When it comes to rape or incest, the balance shifts because the mother is no longer in a ‘relatively normal pregnancy. Rather, she is now post-rape, post-non-consensual (I have a hard time accepting that a woman truly consents to incest, but I’m sure there are extremely rare instances where this might be the case) state of being that imposes obvious and severe trauma and the pregnancy exacerbates this obvious and severe trauma to a degree I cannot find words for. Thus, the balance shifts.
I’m sorry if you are unable to grasp the concept here.
my point was about the role of the state. Short of a doctor knowingly aborting a viable fetus when a delivery would pose a normal risk to the life of the woman delivering or performing an abortion against the wishes of the pregnant woman (maybe other scenarios I’m not thinking of), I’m not sure why it can’t be up to the woman and the doctor.
I would need to be convinced that the state has a compelling interest in preventing doctors from performing late-term abortions without good reason, by which I mean it’s a demonstrable problem that needs addressing.
Ok, I may not be following. Any fetus, absent disease or defect, is “viable” if it is left alone. Do you intend viable to mean ‘capable of living outside the womb?’ and if that is what you mean, are you saying that abortion should be allowed until the fetus is viable?
Regarding late-term abortion, are you saying: the state should not be allowed to prevent a late-term abortion if a doctor, based on medical science, believes the procedure is necessary to preserve the mother’s life or health? If so, I agree.
But IF, as their statements contend, the “pro-life” position is all about concern for the baby, then it simply cannot be squared with rape or incest exceptions. The baby is still a baby, and totally innocent of the misdeed in question.
Well, what may be nonsense to you and BP may make sense to others and, with respect, your logic does not hold up at all. Most rational citizens are concerned with preserving and protecting human life, which is why we have laws against murder to include negligent homicide. However, we also recognize exceptions for justifiable homicide. We even have a constitution that allows for the death penalty assuming due process of law. So, protection/preservation of life is the general default, but it is not the sole, invariable position. You know this to be true. Therefore, the life in the womb is not wholly protected from external, competing and occasionally conflicting concerns. Of course any child is blameless, but that isn’t the issue. Pro-life absolutists may take a black and white stance, but I don’t and I’m pretty sure I’m not an outlier. I’ve used the word ‘balance’ over and over for the simple reason that the ‘abortion yes, abortion no’ question is not cut and dried. There are two sides–at least two–and both have merit. I come down on the child’s side, assuming a relatively normal pregnancy, but I don’t hate or disparage people who answer the question differently.
When it comes to rape or incest, the balance shifts because the mother is no longer in a ‘relatively normal pregnancy. Rather, she is now post-rape, post-non-consensual (I have a hard time accepting that a woman truly consents to incest, but I’m sure there are extremely rare instances where this might be the case) state of being that imposes obvious and severe trauma and the pregnancy exacerbates this obvious and severe trauma to a degree I cannot find words for. Thus, the balance shifts.
I’m sorry if you are unable to grasp the concept here.
my point was about the role of the state. Short of a doctor knowingly aborting a viable fetus when a delivery would pose a normal risk to the life of the woman delivering or performing an abortion against the wishes of the pregnant woman (maybe other scenarios I’m not thinking of), I’m not sure why it can’t be up to the woman and the doctor.
I would need to be convinced that the state has a compelling interest in preventing doctors from performing late-term abortions without good reason, by which I mean it’s a demonstrable problem that needs addressing.
Ok, I may not be following. Any fetus, absent disease or defect, is “viable” if it is left alone. Do you intend viable to mean ‘capable of living outside the womb?’ and if that is what you mean, are you saying that abortion should be allowed until the fetus is viable?
Regarding late-term abortion, are you saying: the state should not be allowed to prevent a late-term abortion if a doctor, based on medical science, believes the procedure is necessary to preserve the mother’s life or health? If so, I agree.
They’re allowing highly invasive uses of state power in poorly considered and draconian ways.
Yes. Someone–JamieM, maybe–referred to penalizing travel to an abortion-legal state as one example of the stupidity the hard right is capable of. As if Texas or Georgia could punish people for flying to Las Vegas to gamble. The principled argument against Roe was that the question of abortion is a state law matter, not a constitutional right. I’m pretty sure that’s basically the holding in Dobbs. One of the advantages of a federal system is that people who don’t like the rules in one state can go to another state where the rules are different. At the extremes, both left and right want to impose some of their viewpoints extra-territorially. It’s the opposite of principled conservatism, not to mention unconstitutional, e.g. states cannot impede interstate commerce or travel.
They’re allowing highly invasive uses of state power in poorly considered and draconian ways.
Yes. Someone–JamieM, maybe–referred to penalizing travel to an abortion-legal state as one example of the stupidity the hard right is capable of. As if Texas or Georgia could punish people for flying to Las Vegas to gamble. The principled argument against Roe was that the question of abortion is a state law matter, not a constitutional right. I’m pretty sure that’s basically the holding in Dobbs. One of the advantages of a federal system is that people who don’t like the rules in one state can go to another state where the rules are different. At the extremes, both left and right want to impose some of their viewpoints extra-territorially. It’s the opposite of principled conservatism, not to mention unconstitutional, e.g. states cannot impede interstate commerce or travel.
Most rational citizens are concerned with preserving and protecting human life, which is why we have laws against murder to include negligent homicide. However, we also recognize exceptions for justifiable homicide.
Well IANAL, of course. But my understanding is that “justifiable homicide” involves killing someone who is threatening you. As a lawyer, can you provide an example of justifiable homicide covering killing someone when neither you, nor anyone else, was threatened with physical harm?
Most rational citizens are concerned with preserving and protecting human life, which is why we have laws against murder to include negligent homicide. However, we also recognize exceptions for justifiable homicide.
Well IANAL, of course. But my understanding is that “justifiable homicide” involves killing someone who is threatening you. As a lawyer, can you provide an example of justifiable homicide covering killing someone when neither you, nor anyone else, was threatened with physical harm?
Do you intend viable to mean ‘capable of living outside the womb?’ and if that is what you mean, are you saying that abortion should be allowed until the fetus is viable?
Yes, capable of living outside the womb. And I’m saying the state should stay out of it and leave it to personal moral decisions and professional ethical decisions. I don’t believe there’s any benefit to the state being any more involved than that because I don’t think many women would be inclined to abort a fetus close to viability without good reason or that many doctors would be inclined to provide that kind of service (or that such women and such doctors would be likely to find each other or would care about the law if they did). Also that what constitutes good reason is very complicated and no one else’s business.
Were I a woman, I would be against aborting my own pregnancy absent compelling reasons, with what’s compelling being increasingly dire as the pregnancy progressed. If a pregnant woman were to solicit my advice, I would tell her to be damned sure she wouldn’t regret having an abortion at any stage in pregnancy – that is, to follow her conscience after serious consideration.
But, again, this is all very personal and very complicated stuff that I think the state needs to stay largely out of.
Do you intend viable to mean ‘capable of living outside the womb?’ and if that is what you mean, are you saying that abortion should be allowed until the fetus is viable?
Yes, capable of living outside the womb. And I’m saying the state should stay out of it and leave it to personal moral decisions and professional ethical decisions. I don’t believe there’s any benefit to the state being any more involved than that because I don’t think many women would be inclined to abort a fetus close to viability without good reason or that many doctors would be inclined to provide that kind of service (or that such women and such doctors would be likely to find each other or would care about the law if they did). Also that what constitutes good reason is very complicated and no one else’s business.
Were I a woman, I would be against aborting my own pregnancy absent compelling reasons, with what’s compelling being increasingly dire as the pregnancy progressed. If a pregnant woman were to solicit my advice, I would tell her to be damned sure she wouldn’t regret having an abortion at any stage in pregnancy – that is, to follow her conscience after serious consideration.
But, again, this is all very personal and very complicated stuff that I think the state needs to stay largely out of.
As a lawyer, can you provide an example of justifiable homicide covering killing someone when neither you, nor anyone else, was threatened with physical harm?
Your question misses the point. You construct and impose on Pro-Lifers a mandatory belief that if any life in the womb deserves protection at any point in pregnancy then every life in a womb deserves protection and I’m rejecting your imposition of that view point. At the periphery of life–with all of its attendant tragedies–balances have to be struck. Your argument is the pro-lifers have no right to strike a balance. I say that is arbitrary BS.
As a lawyer, can you provide an example of justifiable homicide covering killing someone when neither you, nor anyone else, was threatened with physical harm?
Your question misses the point. You construct and impose on Pro-Lifers a mandatory belief that if any life in the womb deserves protection at any point in pregnancy then every life in a womb deserves protection and I’m rejecting your imposition of that view point. At the periphery of life–with all of its attendant tragedies–balances have to be struck. Your argument is the pro-lifers have no right to strike a balance. I say that is arbitrary BS.
But, again, this is all very personal and very complicated stuff that I think the state needs to stay largely out of.
Lots of people agree with you. That aside, the word ‘largely’ appears in your sentence, implying that the state has some, very limited say-so–what is that say-so, if you don’t mind? This is not a challenge–I’m curious.
But, again, this is all very personal and very complicated stuff that I think the state needs to stay largely out of.
Lots of people agree with you. That aside, the word ‘largely’ appears in your sentence, implying that the state has some, very limited say-so–what is that say-so, if you don’t mind? This is not a challenge–I’m curious.
You construct and impose on Pro-Lifers a mandatory belief that if any life in the womb deserves protection at any point in pregnancy then every life in a womb deserves protection and I’m rejecting your imposition of that view point.
As it happens, that isn’t my take on their views. You can take any nuanced view you like on the point in a pregnancy beyond which abortion should be banned. Fine. We can disagree on the details, or whether the state should have any say in the decision, but the position itself isn’t invalid.
However, as soon as you say “This is the limit except in cases of rape or incest” you [generic, not you personally] are saying “This isn’t about the baby/foetus at all.” Because if it were, those exceptions are indefensible. Any claim that it is about the baby simply isn’t credible.
You construct and impose on Pro-Lifers a mandatory belief that if any life in the womb deserves protection at any point in pregnancy then every life in a womb deserves protection and I’m rejecting your imposition of that view point.
As it happens, that isn’t my take on their views. You can take any nuanced view you like on the point in a pregnancy beyond which abortion should be banned. Fine. We can disagree on the details, or whether the state should have any say in the decision, but the position itself isn’t invalid.
However, as soon as you say “This is the limit except in cases of rape or incest” you [generic, not you personally] are saying “This isn’t about the baby/foetus at all.” Because if it were, those exceptions are indefensible. Any claim that it is about the baby simply isn’t credible.
To me, a human zygote isn’t a person, a new-born baby is a person, and in between is in between. The harm done by destroying a non-yet-person is greater the nearer to personhood it gets. And it’s up to the woman carrying a fetus what harm she’s willing to do.
So I disagree with McKT about the extent to which the state should involve itself, but I agree with him that the decision might well depend on the circumstances of the pregnancy.
I don’t understand what he says about out-of-state travel. If a fetus is a person, why does it not have a right to stay where it’s safe?
I disagree with making imputations of bad faith, or mental imbalance, against people one disagrees with.
To me, a human zygote isn’t a person, a new-born baby is a person, and in between is in between. The harm done by destroying a non-yet-person is greater the nearer to personhood it gets. And it’s up to the woman carrying a fetus what harm she’s willing to do.
So I disagree with McKT about the extent to which the state should involve itself, but I agree with him that the decision might well depend on the circumstances of the pregnancy.
I don’t understand what he says about out-of-state travel. If a fetus is a person, why does it not have a right to stay where it’s safe?
I disagree with making imputations of bad faith, or mental imbalance, against people one disagrees with.
That aside, the word ‘largely’ appears in your sentence, implying that the state has some, very limited say-so–what is that say-so, if you don’t mind?
The state’s role would exist in the space not short of the things I described in a previous comment. Quote below:
“Short of a doctor knowingly aborting a viable fetus when a delivery would pose a normal risk to the life of the woman delivering or performing an abortion against the wishes of the pregnant woman (maybe other scenarios I’m not thinking of), I’m not sure why it can’t be up to the woman and the doctor.”
That aside, the word ‘largely’ appears in your sentence, implying that the state has some, very limited say-so–what is that say-so, if you don’t mind?
The state’s role would exist in the space not short of the things I described in a previous comment. Quote below:
“Short of a doctor knowingly aborting a viable fetus when a delivery would pose a normal risk to the life of the woman delivering or performing an abortion against the wishes of the pregnant woman (maybe other scenarios I’m not thinking of), I’m not sure why it can’t be up to the woman and the doctor.”
I don’t understand what he says about out-of-state travel. If a fetus is a person, why does it not have a right to stay where it’s safe?
Several deep red states, including TX (I believe), have either proposed or actually adopted laws making it a crime to leave the state to obtain an abortion in another state if that abortion would be illegal in the home state. My opinions on that are as stated above.
I don’t understand what he says about out-of-state travel. If a fetus is a person, why does it not have a right to stay where it’s safe?
Several deep red states, including TX (I believe), have either proposed or actually adopted laws making it a crime to leave the state to obtain an abortion in another state if that abortion would be illegal in the home state. My opinions on that are as stated above.
Well yes, McKT. You wrote that “people who don’t like the rules in one state can go to another state where the rules are different. ”
If a fetus is a person, which is not my belief but seems to be yours, why is not their presumed reluctance to go to another state at least as important as the pregnant woman’s wish to travel?
Well yes, McKT. You wrote that “people who don’t like the rules in one state can go to another state where the rules are different. ”
If a fetus is a person, which is not my belief but seems to be yours, why is not their presumed reluctance to go to another state at least as important as the pregnant woman’s wish to travel?
LJ–I’m going to revert to my earlier policy of occasionally addressing your substantive comments/positions, but ignoring your personal shittiness. I’ve concluded that you are a mildly disodered [sic] narcissist.
I don’t know, McT, Projection Today has more content than it can handle!
LJ–I’m going to revert to my earlier policy of occasionally addressing your substantive comments/positions, but ignoring your personal shittiness. I’ve concluded that you are a mildly disodered [sic] narcissist.
I don’t know, McT, Projection Today has more content than it can handle!