Politics Discussion: Cynicism Always Warranted

Topic

Talk about politics here.

Probably quite a quiet thread at the moment I expect.

Replies

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

I’ve never had to change my gender pronouns usage in the 47 years I’ve lived on this Earth. Maybe if I ever get to know some non-binary transgender person I will have to amend the third person pronoun I use to address them. Really, who fucking cares? If they really want me to use another word, I’ll do it.

Personal experience is a huge factor in all of this, obviously. I was in my early twenties when a good friend of mine came out as a trans woman, and I did the best I could to be supportive, including quickly getting used to using her new name and the right pronoun. It did take me a little while to not accidentally get it wrong sometimes, but I did my best there. Anyway, we’re still friends almost thirty years later (even though we only see each other very irregularly), so I’ve been friends with a trans person for decades and the thing is her gender never mattered in any way. I mean, when you primarily bond over a shared love of movies and pen and paper RPGs, neither of those goes away is impacted by whether you’re male or female or cis or trans or gender fluid.

6 users thanked author for this post.

Chris D, Al-x, Arjan Dirkse, Ben, lorcan_nagle

This month the focus of moral outrage in the United States is those trans individuals who dare to compete in sports or who want to use the same bathroom as my child. Last month the focus was on those radical teachers who want to expose our children to Critical Race Theory. I suppose next month we will be outraged by rape victims who dare to attempt to get an abortion in Florida or Texas.

Thank goodness we don’t have real problems or real concerns to be outraged about, like gun violence, or homelessness, or climate change, or politicians in the pockets of the NRA/Big Oil/Pharma/foreign interests. If we did, we probably wouldn’t have time to focus on the really important stuff.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Arjan Dirkse, lorcan_nagle, garjones

Yep. That is the great and lasting success of the political right. It is quite infuriating.

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

njerry wrote:

This month the focus of moral outrage in the United States is those trans individuals who dare to compete in sports or who want to use the same bathroom as my child. Last month the focus was on those radical teachers who want to expose our children to Critical Race Theory. I suppose next month we will be outraged by rape victims who dare to attempt to get an abortion in Florida or Texas.

Don’t forget accusing the Disney corporation and all the people you mentioned of being a vast paedophile ring as well. That’s fun right now.

2 users thanked author for this post.

njerry

Christian wrote:

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

I’ve never had to change my gender pronouns usage in the 47 years I’ve lived on this Earth. Maybe if I ever get to know some non-binary transgender person I will have to amend the third person pronoun I use to address them. Really, who fucking cares? If they really want me to use another word, I’ll do it.

Personal experience is a huge factor in all of this, obviously. I was in my early twenties when a good friend of mine came out as a trans woman, and I did the best I could to be supportive, including quickly getting used to using her new name and the right pronoun. It did take me a little while to not accidentally get it wrong sometimes, but I did my best there. Anyway, we’re still friends almost thirty years later (even though we only see each other very irregularly), so I’ve been friends with a trans person for decades and the thing is her gender never mattered in any way. I mean, when you primarily bond over a shared love of movies and pen and paper RPGs, neither of those goes away is impacted by whether you’re male or female or cis or trans or gender fluid.

Yep, I have a co-worker who recently changed their pronouns to they/them. Everyone will slip up from time to time in using the correct pronouns, but it’s not been a big deal adjusting at all. But that’s been the right in a nutshell for a while now. Just whining about stuff that has little to no impact on their daily lives while ignoring real problems.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Christian, Todd, lorcan_nagle

A few years ago, the city I work for updated the utility services contract new residents would fill out to get water and garbage services. Something I changed was the “he/she” to “he/she/they”. It is a simple thing that I doubt 99% of the people notice but will mean something to a non-binary person.

4 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, njerry, Ben

Todd wrote:

A few years ago, the city I work for updated the utility services contract new residents would fill out to get water and garbage services. Something I changed was the “he/she” to “he/she/they”. It is a simple thing that I doubt 99% of the people notice but will mean something to a non-binary person.

So now the entire trans community of Texas is going to flock to SugarLand. Well done, Todd!!

4 users thanked author for this post.

garjones, Todd, lorcan_nagle

Using “they” as a singular pronoun is obviously only a thing for anglophone communities. There is an equivalent in Dutch, using “hen” instead of “hij/zij”, but I don’t know if it gets a lot of usage. Obviously it would only be preferred by people who don’t identify as woman or man but as non-binary. Also I hear some non-binary people saying people can use any pronoun.  Eddie Izzard for instance identifies as non-binary but she prefers she as a pronoun and doesn’t really mind if people use another pronoun.

 

In different languages it works differently. In Czech it is really different becasue there is no gender neutral “they”, the plural third person pronouns are still gendered. For instance for a group of men you would use “oni” and women “ony”. Apparently some have proposed using a neologism, “one”, but most non-binary persons don’t like it because it sounds odd to them. Also other types of words like nouns and adjectives and verbs are gendered, and it is not clear how to handle these for non-binary people. For instance there are two different words for “writer” depending on wether it is a man or a woman, and papers didn’t know which word to use to talk about a non-binary writer who won the Booker prize a few years ago.

AOC weighs in on Jan 6:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/aoc-warns-jan-6-was-a-trial-run-capitol-riot-180056825.html

She said something before that about 10 years from now, the US will be even less of a democracy than it says it is now.

Wow…

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

In different languages it works differently. In Czech it is really different becasue there is no gender neutral “they”, the plural third person pronouns are still gendered. For instance for a group of men you would use “oni” and women “ony”. Apparently some have proposed using a neologism, “one”, but most non-binary persons don’t like it because it sounds odd to them. Also other types of words like nouns and adjectives and verbs are gendered, and it is not clear how to handle these for non-binary people. For instance there are two different words for “writer” depending on wether it is a man or a woman, and papers didn’t know which word to use to talk about a non-binary writer who won the Booker prize a few years ago.

In Thai and. I believe, Mandarin, there is no gender to the pronouns for people. So my wife is constantly using she and he interchangeably referring to the same person.

It is interesting that some languages have gender distinctions between inanimate objects on the other end of the spectrum. Why is a lamp feminine and sweatshirt masculine?

Anonymous wrote:

In Thai and. I believe, Mandarin, there is no gender to the pronouns for people. So my wife is constantly using she and he interchangeably referring to the same person.

True enough. It’s actually included in the dialogue of Everything Everywhere All At Once. Michelle Yeoh’s character is picked up for saying ‘he’ when referring to a girl and she defends herself saying that’s how it is in Chinese (in real life Yeoh is actually more fluent in English than Chinese, which is quite common in Malaysia).

I have heard it here where kids especially but some adults raised speaking Chinese primarily at home they do just say ‘he’ for either gender.

When it comes to gender for objects  it is a little daft, English indulges it in places too with things like vehicles, and the funny thing is it isn’t really taught. There are so many things in the world that it’d be a never ending chart of gendering them to memorise so you just learn them by osmosis really. If it sounds right it probably is right.

In Czech you can often see the gender of the word by the ending of the word (but there are exceptions). Words that end in consonants are masculine, words that end in -a or -e are feminine, and words that end in -o are neuter. So zahrada (garden) is feminine, hrad (castle) is masculine, and město (city)  is neuter.

It is interesting that some languages have gender distinctions between inanimate objects on the other end of the spectrum. Why is a lamp feminine and sweatshirt masculine?

If you have to ask, you’ll never know.

Seriously, though, like Gar says there is no reason. It’s just there to make languages harder.

garjones wrote:

There are so many things in the world that it’d be a never ending chart of gendering them to memorise so you just learn them by osmosis really. If it sounds right it probably is right.

That’s certainly true for native speakers (and of course for others over the course of time). It’s a bastard while first learning a language as a non-native speaker though.

This is an interesting map. What would you assume the colours represent?

 

Answer: dark blue – masculine, feminine, neuter; red – masculine, feminine; yellow – common, neuter; green – animate, inanimate; light blue – no grammatical gender system

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

DavidM wrote:

Answer: dark blue – masculine, feminine, neuter; red – masculine, feminine; yellow – common, neuter; green – animate, inanimate; light blue – no grammatical gender system

The swedish system of common (reale) and neuter (neutrum) has a flair of animate/inanimate to them as well, but it’s not a hard line. It’s reasonable to assume the same goes for danish since the languages are quite similar, but I’m not at all certain about that.

1 user thanked author for this post.

DavidM

It’s interesting that (Netherlandic) Dutch and Flemish Dutch are different on that map. I would have assumed Flemish is the same in this regard.  I think there is a tiny difference between the masculine and feminine gender in Dutch, although it isn’t often used or taught. Maybe it’s a matter of perspective.

 

 

aaaaargh spoiler tags

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

In Czech you can often see the gender of the word by the ending of the word

Isn’t that the same in Russian? Romanov and Romanova. or am I at fault because I get my language clues from Marvel comics.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Arjan Dirkse

Rocket wrote:

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

In Czech you can often see the gender of the word by the ending of the word

Isn’t that the same in Russian? Romanov and Romanova. or am I at fault because I get my language clues from Marvel comics.

Yes that’s true, Russian and Czech are both Slavic languages and they share many features.

Something is going on in Florida. And it is affecting Disney.

Disney is so big it has its own government thing going on, almost like the Vatican.

Their  self governing status can go away if DeSantis and the GOP’s plans go through:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-florida-dont-say-gay-bill-disney-desantis-what-the-hell-181856600.html

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/21/us/reedy-creek-walt-disney-florida/index.html

You know how I’m always saying these moral panics are repeated from times past? Particularly the current one around trans kids and LGBT education? Well, what year do you think this poster was made?

3 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, Todd

Exit polls saying Macron has trounced Le Pen.

Thank fuck for that. I’m agnostic about Macron but Europe or the world does not need fascists.

7 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Martin Smith, lorcan_nagle, Dave, Ben, Arjan Dirkse

Yes, Le Pen is just awful. They tried to put on a friendy, leftist face to draw more voters, but beneath the skin you still have the old Front National her father led. She’s also terribly Islamophobic, almost as bad as Wilders in that regard. She proposed a headscarf ban for all public places…not a burqa ban, but a ban on all headscarves.

5 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, Todd, lorcan_nagle, garjones

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

Yes, Le Pen is just awful. They tried to put on a friendy, leftist face to draw more voters, but beneath the skin you still have the old Front National her father led. She’s also terribly Islamophobic, almost as bad as Wilders in that regard. She proposed a headscarf ban for all public places…not a burqa ban, but a ban on all headscarves.

She is also very pro-Putin and Russia, so Cthulhu knows how that would have fucked things up with the Ukraine. I may be mistaken, but I thought I heard her campaign even received some funding from Russia.

She’s also pro-Trump.

A bullet was definitely dodged.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, lorcan_nagle

garjones wrote:

Exit polls saying Macron has trounced Le Pen.

Yeah, it’s a relief that Le Pen didn’t win.

At the same time, Macron’s neo-liberal policies (first thing he did when he was elected was get rid of the wealth tax) are playing into the hands of the far right and she might well have won if there wasn’t a war on and her isolationist, anti-European policies suddenly look dumb even to a lot of people who until recently favoured them.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Ben, lorcan_nagle

Excellent work, democratic system, zero notes. Definitely can’t do better.

6 users thanked author for this post.

Christian, Todd, DavidM, Ben, garjones

We still have to deal with the fact that around 40% of French voters are fascists though. That’s a bit depressing.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Excellent work, democratic system, zero notes. Definitely can’t do better.

Worth noting that the statistic there applies only to the subset of voters who voted for Mélenchon in the first round and then voted Macron in the second round.

(I’ve already seen this statistic widely discussed and reported today as though it applies to all round-two Macron voters.)

So with that in mind, really it’s pretty much what you’d expect. You wouldn’t really expect any/many Mélenchon supporters to think that Macron was a great president, given how far apart the candidates are are politically. But it’s good to see that when Mélenchon was no longer an option, and it came down to a choice between Macron or Le Pen, they made a laudable decision – even if their politics didn’t really align with those of Macron and it was largely a move to make sure Le Pen was shut out (which again you’d probably expect to be the case for most first-round Mélenchon voters faced with that choice).

Really I think the French presidential system is actually quite a good demonstration of an alternative voting system, not that dissimilar in principle to the system that was put forward for referendum a decade ago in the UK. If your first choice doesn’t get in, then at least your vote isn’t completely wasted and you get a second chance to put your weight behind one of the only two contenders left in the race and influence that decision. So you get a broader consensus than you’d get from just ignoring all the voters who didn’t vote Macron or Le Pen in the first round.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle

Christian wrote:

At the same time, Macron’s neo-liberal policies (first thing he did when he was elected was get rid of the wealth tax) are playing into the hands of the far right and she might well have won if there wasn’t a war on and her isolationist, anti-European policies suddenly look dumb even to a lot of people who until recently favoured them.

French politics are depressing. Melenchon is the biggest left winger and he sucks too, he is very anti-EU and an antisemite.

Dave wrote:

So with that in mind, really it’s pretty much what you’d expect. You wouldn’t really expect any/many Mélenchon supporters to think that Macron was a great president, given how far apart the candidates are are politically. But it’s good to see that when Mélenchon was no longer an option, and it came down to a choice between Macron or Le Pen, they made a laudable decision – even if their politics didn’t really align with those of Macron and it was largely a move to make sure Le Pen was shut out (which again you’d probably expect to be the case for most first-round Mélenchon voters faced with that choice).

Really I think the French presidential system is actually quite a good demonstration of an alternative voting system, not that dissimilar in principle to the system that was put forward for referendum a decade ago in the UK. If your first choice doesn’t get in, then at least your vote isn’t completely wasted and you get a second chance to put your weight behind one of the only two contenders left in the race and influence that decision. So you get a broader consensus than you’d get from just ignoring all the voters who didn’t vote Macron or Le Pen in the first round.

Yeah, but it still illustrates the problem that occupies modern US and European politics, in that the neoliberal is the final bastion against the fascist, and in either case we all get shafted. And while all the people who voted for Mélenchon in the first round could have stayed home for the second and not changed the final result, what if everyone who didn’t vote for Macron or Le Pen did? It’s a dangerous place for democracy when you’re relying on people who choose the lesser of two evils.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket, Todd, Dave

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Yeah, but it still illustrates the problem that occupies modern US and European politics, in that the neoliberal is the final bastion against the fascist, and in either case we all get shafted.

I do share that frustration to an extent, but I think that’s more an indictment of current trends in political thinking that veer towards the right, rather than the democratic mechanism itself necessarily being faulty.

lorcan_nagle wrote:

And while all the people who voted for Mélenchon in the first round could have stayed home for the second and not changed the final result, what if everyone who didn’t vote for Macron or Le Pen did? It’s a dangerous place for democracy when you’re relying on people who choose the lesser of two evils.

Well if everyone who voted for other candidates in the first round stayed home in the second then Macron would still have won, as he came out significantly ahead of Le Pen in that first round too.

I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with your voting decision being at least partly motivated to keep out a ‘bad’ candidate. I think that’s always going to happen in a democracy where an unpleasant candidate like a Le Pen or a Farage has a significant share of the vote.

For me personally that extends to voting tactically in elections where I feel like voting for a certain candidate (Labour, Lib Dem or Green, say) can see off a Tory, even if they wouldn’t necessarily be my first choice.

And I think that in this French example the final situation was really down to the voters and the candidates rather than the inherent weaknesses of the system and the way it’s set up.

I like that the French system is open to lots of different political viewpoints in the first round, rather than it being a two-horse race from the outset and people having to vote tactically/defensively/negatively from the off. So Mélenchon had every chance to connect with voters, but ended up coming third in the opening round (with 21.95% of the vote compared to Le Pen on 23.15% and Macron on 27.85%.)

So he ultimately missed the opportunity to outperform those two rivals (and that’s even with Zemmour in the mix this time splitting the far-right vote).

And in the end, this time around I think it was probably for the best that the French system’s second round forces a choice between just two candidates rather than allowing a wider selection of candidates.

If it had been all three of those top-rated candidates (all the other first-round candidates scored less than 8%) in round two, I think there’s a very real danger that the 58% that Macron ultimately got in the final round would have ended up split between him and Mélenchon, and Le Pen would have come out in front.

We can blame the system for some of our frustrations, but my feeling with this specific example is that it’s more about the leftwing candidate not making his case effectively enough with voters (another regular theme currently for Western democracies).

If Mélenchon had managed to do just a little bit better in his campaign for that opening round and had captured just 1.2 percentage points more of the vote, then it would have been a completely different story (as it would have been a run-off between him and Macron rather than Le Pen making it through) and we’d be having a very different conversation.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

Christian wrote:

Seriously, though, like Gar says there is no reason.

I mean, in spanish there is… but I’m not gonna tell you =P

(it just depends on which vowel the word ends with, with a few expections)

garjones wrote:

Exit polls saying Macron has trounced Le Pen.

How unsurprising… Le Pen (both of them) only exist as a political boogeyman so the other candidate can get a sure win… the French system is so fuckin stupid… it’s always the same shit. Honestly, I kinda wish they’d win already so we could get over that shit.

But hey, great, 5 more years of the banks’ little bitch…

1 user thanked author for this post.

Christian

[Al-x]

Some points here on the GOP’s view of democracy and “fair” elections:

————-

And… The Subtle slow moving coup continues:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/republicans-trying-seize-veto-power-144642840.html

• This reply was modified 2 years, 8 months ago by Al-x.

Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene got into such a heated confrontation that another lawmaker had to step in to intervene: report

Each woman is a dumpster fire of a human being, but MTG is even more so.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

I take it they are scared because if it goes through Biden and the Dems would then start to look better to the young voters (currently weighed down) in the next elections…

Republicans Are Panicking Over the Prospect of Biden Forgiving Student Debt

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, JRCarter

Al-x wrote:

Republicans Are Panicking Over the Prospect of Biden Forgiving Student Debt

The problem is that Biden is so obviously personally against it. It’s like he is fighting to avoid doing it. It is the most bizarre thing.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Al-x, Todd

JRCarter wrote:

Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene got into such a heated confrontation that another lawmaker had to step in to intervene: report

Each woman is a dumpster fire of a human being, but MTG is even more so.

https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2022/04/blind-item-8_29.html?m=1

1 user thanked author for this post.

JRCarter

9 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket, Sean Robinson, Arjan Dirkse, garjones, lorcan_nagle, Ben, Todd

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/evidence-mounts-of-gop-involvement-in-trump-election-schemes/ar-AAWO4SU?ocid=mmx

They know. They always knew.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Dave wrote:

1 user thanked author for this post.

garjones

Honestly the tractor porn story is one of the most bizarre yet and a dream for meme makers.

Two female MPs complained a colleague was watching porn on his phone while supposed to be working in the House. He eventually confessed and has tendered his resignation but his excuse was he was looking for tractors and accidentally found some porn, then went back in deliberately a second time.

 

5 users thanked author for this post.

Sean Robinson, Ben, Todd, lorcan_nagle

Wait…I think that pink “tractor” is Ghislaine Maxwell!!

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Todd

Politico has received leaked information that the US Supreme Court has voted to overturn Roe V Wade. Good thing Biden got voted in to prevent this!

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Politico has received leaked information that the US Supreme Court has voted to overturn Roe V Wade. Good thing Biden got voted in to prevent this!

It’s getting all over the news and social media sites now.

Brace yourselves.

It is worth repeating now how different the SCOTUS would have looked now had people all got on the same page to put in Hilary given that Tr*mp was in the position to usher in 4.

Also, people are going to take their real stand now and fight when they could have been fighting real hard for when the opponents started to erode the little things here and there, went after other groups, never realizing that the opponents would in time come for them. Is it too late? Hard to say, but it reminds one of that quotation by Martin Niemoller that we see now and then:

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

 

 

[lorcan_nagle]

Al-x wrote:

It is worth repeating now how different the SCOTUS would have looked now had people all got on the same page to put in Hilary given that Tr*mp was in the position to usher in 4.

The Democrats have been fine with anti-choice people for a long time now, to the point that Nancy Pelosi is backing an outspoken anti-choice, anti-LGBT candidate in a Congressional Primary over a progressive one right now. The idea that if Clinton had won in 2008 2016 (edit because I can’t count any more) would mean this wouldn’t be happening now is questionable.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 8 months ago by lorcan_nagle.

[Al-x]

True the Dems are no saints either. For Americans, it is choosing of the lesser of the two. It was Cornell West who said about both Tr*mp and Hilary that one is a catastrophe and the other a disaster. Still, one can only imagine how different some things would have been.

Now that the Roe v Wade is under threat, now some will be outraged and wonder “How could this have happened?”, but the question really should be “Where have you been all this time with these small “erosions”  occurring?”

 

Then there is this message that has been going on for years that AOC is now echoing:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ocasio-cortez-supreme-court-isn-123640236.html

• This reply was modified 2 years, 8 months ago by Al-x.

The idea that the Supreme Court is still fiddling about with the constitution and how it makes abortion legal or not is so odd. Basically the Supreme Court has the power to make laws based on a new interpretation of a two hundred year old document. So in a way they’re part of the legislative branch.

[lorcan_nagle]

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Al-x wrote:

It is worth repeating now how different the SCOTUS would have looked now had people all got on the same page to put in Hilary given that Tr*mp was in the position to usher in 4.

The Democrats have been fine with anti-choice people for a long time now, to the point that Nancy Pelosi is backing an outspoken anti-choice, anti-LGBT candidate in a Congressional Primary over a progressive one right now. The idea that if Clinton had won in 2008 2016 (edit because I can’t count any more) would mean this wouldn’t be happening now is questionable.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 8 months ago by lorcan_nagle.

While the Dems have problems and certainly aren’t super liberal, I do think it’s safe to say that whoever she appointed (and she would have appointed at least 2 and would likely still be president right now) wouldn’t have had an interest in going after Roe. The conservative justices just wouldn’t have the numbers. Which isn’t to say this threat wouldn’t still be looming, but I don’t see any reason this would be happening right now if Clinton won.

That said, I sincerely hope this serves as a wake-up call for enough people to realize apathy is going to actively destroy lives and this country very quickly. I get that the Dems are disappointing, but at least they aren’t actively trying to take away rights from anyone who isn’t a wealthy white Christian man. Of course, I unfortunately expect this will change nothing as we rapidly descend into theocracy.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Justice Roberts doing damage control:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/roberts-says-leaked-alito-draft-opinion-is-authentic-but-not-final-opens-leak-investigation/ar-AAWSag9?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=8089c937a0de47d9b4f59f84ce98b972

Chris D wrote:

we rapidly descend into theocracy.

Well…

If someone (not mentioning names) has their way, it won’t be a theocracy. Rather a dictatorship/police state with a faux democracy veneer complete with fake elections etc.

Scary thought, but it could happen.

JRCarter wrote:

Justice Roberts doing damage control:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/roberts-says-leaked-alito-draft-opinion-is-authentic-but-not-final-opens-leak-investigation/ar-AAWSag9?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=8089c937a0de47d9b4f59f84ce98b972

Roberts didn’t give a damn about Clarence Thomas’ wife trying to overturn an election and Clarence Thomas trying to cover it up by voting against releasing the documents, yet he cares about the early leak of a monumental decision? What an ass.

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, JRCarter

Chris D wrote:

Roberts didn’t give a damn about Clarence Thomas’ wife trying to overturn an election and Clarence Thomas trying to cover it up by voting against releasing the documents, yet he cares about the early leak of a monumental decision? What an ass.

I’m less offended by Roberts’ hypocrisy than I am by the fact that a Justice who was accused of sexual assault of at least three woman now gets to vote on whether or not those women are allowed to make choices regarding their own bodies.

5 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket, Sean Robinson, Chris D, JRCarter, Todd

One justice accused of sexual assault and one accused of sexual harassment. Somehow these are the people who get to decide what women do with their bodies. It’s a very gross condemnation of the US system.

7 users thanked author for this post.

JRCarter, Todd, njerry, Ben, Sean Robinson, lorcan_nagle, Al-x

Chris D wrote:

While the Dems have problems and certainly aren’t super liberal, I do think it’s safe to say that whoever she appointed (and she would have appointed at least 2 and would likely still be president right now) wouldn’t have had an interest in going after Roe. The conservative justices just wouldn’t have the numbers. Which isn’t to say this threat wouldn’t still be looming, but I don’t see any reason this would be happening right now if Clinton won.

Possibly not likely, but I find it entirely feasible that the Democrats would nominate an anti-choicer to “reach across the aisle”

1 user thanked author for this post.

Chris D

Kind of sorry to push the envelope with a graphic picture, but not really at the same time.

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Todd

Thanks for that, Sean. I don’t need to sleep ever again.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket, Sean Robinson

[Al-x]

Google “If men could get pregnant” and the images section has so many memes about how convenient abortions would then be. Like this:

As for this RoevWade… It is on social media now blaming “certain women” who did not really show up when it came to kids in cages and other social issues that came before. Only now that it will directly affect them do they now say “This is our clarion call. ALL WOMEN must unite!” Well, where were they before with this unity message? Still expecting the other women to pick up the slack. Social media is so brutal on this…

Ask the anti abortion supporters if they are into more funding for adoption and prenatal care.

—————————————–
Now… It was 2011 at the WH correspondence dinner. Tr*mp was there, and Obama did make some digs at him over the “birther” thing. Some of the jokes also were about Tr*mp leading the country.

That may have made a light bulb turn on in his head.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-white-house-correspondents-dinner-trump-20170226-story.html

I don’t know. Does Obama get credit or blame? Or both depending on who you ask.

Makes me wonder… What if Obama never went there that night?

—————————————
It was W Bush that started looking into pandemics back in 2005 and then Obama followed up and made this panel of 500 specialists.
Tr*mp got rid of the panel when he took office in his effort to undo everything his predecessor done. Then a few years later came Covid 19

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/run-plays-officials-trump-administration-pandemic-playbooks/story?id=71999769
———————————————

Regarding MAGA people.. You can’t shame the shameless. Pointing out hypocrisy, contradictions, double standards, only make them say “So what? What are you going to do about it?” Grabbing women by *****, Stormi Daniels, 20+ women coming forward doesn’t mean anything. (On a side note, porn is a multi billion dollar industry.) They just don’t care. Kids in cages, Mexicans, sh*thole countries, rigging the vote. To vote for him was to bypass all that and still say he is the man. What else?
——————–
I am an advocate of consolidated postings to save postings. 😂

• This reply was modified 2 years, 8 months ago by Al-x.
• This reply was modified 2 years, 8 months ago by Al-x.
• This reply was modified 2 years, 8 months ago by Al-x.

The primary element of the pro-birth movement has been to use civil rights as the model and casting the unborn as the discriminated class.

However, obviously, the unborn do not exist so it is asserting the rights of a class of people that do not exist over the freedom of the pregnant women who obviously do exist.

The draft argument appears to claim that the right to end an abortion is not addressed in the constitution and it is not a class of rights that can be covered under the amendments – which obviously leave unspecified rights to the States or the people.

There is some justification for this in that an abortion requires a doctor to consent to terminate the pregnancy. So, to protect the right to an abortion, could the government coerce a doctor to perform the procedure? Then is that not a violation of the doctor’s rights? As it is not solely in the power of the single person – the pregnant woman – to give herself the abortion, it can’t be considered the same as a constitutional right.

However, at the same time, apply this logic to the second amendment. The right to bear arms is not directly determined to be an individual right in the wording of the 2nd amendment and there is no specified right to manufacture and sell arms. So, an equally valid argument could be made that you certainly have the right to possess weapons, but the entire manufacture and sell of those weapons could be forbidden.

Again, at heart is the reliance on the constitution for one’s liberty when even those drafting the constitution believed those liberties were inherent and existing independent from and before the constitution was drafted. It was not a sacred document for the original government, it was a rulebook and they went to great pains to ensure that rulebook did not have any authority over their individual liberties – liberties that included enslaving people and basically possessing women.

At heart, our freedom is protected only by our own assertion of it. Not by our government, our courts or our national constitutions. Roe v Wade was not a solid foundation for abortion rights – it was expedient. However, relying on it may also have prevented a lot of actual legislative work to reflect “the will of the people.”

This article comes around now and then. It goes into the history, even the part when the slave trade was over and the South was really into breeding slaves to compensate. It might be a bit too much to stomach reading it so… Fair warning

It may not be so much of a stretch when you consider so many things and attitudes that still with us are a carryover from previous eras.

The Fall of ‘Roe’ Was Driven by Our Country’s Original Sin: Anti-Blackness

The “if men could get pregnant” memes miss the point of course.

The truth is that if men could get pregnant they wouldn’t be ruling the world now, so all of the other points are irrelevant.

 

3 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Todd, Dave

DavidM wrote:

The “if men could get pregnant” memes miss the point of course.

The truth is that if men could get pregnant they wouldn’t be ruling the world now, so all of the other points are irrelevant.

 

I don’t know. If men were the ones who got pregnant and were still the physically stronger sex, I actually expect human men would act similar to lots of spider species and kill their mate after procreation. Because that’s just the kind of vibe men have given over the course of human history. Power hungry misogynists.

5 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Sean Robinson, Todd, DavidM

I wonder if the GOP realises that this ruling – if it actually comes – is the worst thing that could’ve happened to them. Trying to get rid of Roe v Wade gave them the deciding votes from the Christian fundamentalists foaming at their mouths for half a century, but now that they’ve got what they want, it’ll be harder to get them to the voting booths. Whereas everybody suffering under this change of legislation, which is basically all of the women in the country now have a completely new motivation to go vote, and vote Democrat. This will energise the Dems potential voters like no other issue could have.

Seriously, I think they shot off their entire foot there.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Sean Robinson, Ben

I think it now has to be this way.

Despite running the world for the great majority of my lifetime, the right wing still manages to sell a narrative of things could be so good if not for “super powerful liberal elites”.

Well, now they have what they’ve always wanted – not limited to the US either, see Johnson and co.  And yes, many people will be hurt by them.  But, amazing as it sounds, some of those hurt will still vote for those who inflicted the hurt on them.  Though, the recent bills passed set a very ominous tone for future UK elections.

People like opting for a known devil.  Add in the idea that you can have politics without responsibility or accountability and it’s not a good mix.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

Christian wrote:

I wonder if the GOP realises that this ruling – if it actually comes – is the worst thing that could’ve happened to them. Trying to get rid of Roe v Wade gave them the deciding votes from the Christian fundamentalists foaming at their mouths for half a century, but now that they’ve got what they want, it’ll be harder to get them to the voting booths. Whereas everybody suffering under this change of legislation, which is basically all of the women in the country now have a completely new motivation to go vote, and vote Democrat. This will energise the Dems potential voters like no other issue could have.

Seriously, I think they shot off their entire foot there.

Actually, I think it will embolden them to go after gay marriage and anything else they think a conservative court will overturn.

I mean, you have bullshit like this: Texas governor says the state may contest a Supreme Court ruling on migrant education

In the long run, it may cost them but a lot of damage will be done before then.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

Todd wrote:

In the long run, it may cost them but a lot of damage will be done before then.

Well, we will see about “done”. Where Roe v Wade is concerned, if the Democrats handle their cards right, this might win them the midterms, because they need a filibuster-breaking majority to be able to get a national law for reproductive rights through the Senate.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Christian wrote:

this might win them the midterms

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

I don’t know how to argue with multiple Jonathan Frakeses. There are too many things about them that are entirely distracting to me.

…Jonathans Frake?

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd

Christian wrote:

Jonathan Frakeses

Christian wrote:

Jonathans Frake

Jonathinee Fraki

1 user thanked author for this post.

Christian

Anonymous wrote:

Christian wrote:

Jonathan Frakeses

Christian wrote:

Jonathans Frake

Jonathinee Fraki

JFs

Todd wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Christian wrote:

Jonathan Frakeses

Christian wrote:

Jonathans Frake

Jonathinee Fraki

JFs

Jeffs.

Anonymous wrote:

However, obviously, the unborn do not exist so it is asserting the rights of a class of people that do not exist over the freedom of the pregnant women who obviously do exist.

I don’t think it’s that simple, obviously fetuses (the unborn) exist. The question is if they should have any rights.

 

In Islam there is a moment the fetus is “ensouled”, I think 120 days after the conception after which abortion is illegal. I think if you believe they are beings with souls, you will feel a moral obligation to grant them certain protections. I am not sure wether such a things as a soul exists, but for me the equivalent would be if a fetus at any point during pregnancy can already feel, and suffer. If that were to be the case, some kind of protection should at that time be granted.

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

The question is if they should have any rights.

Well, the actual question is whether those rights trump the rights of the woman whose body they’re in.

I do think foetuses should have some kind of rights. Just not more so than the rights of women.

Christian wrote:

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

The question is if they should have any rights.

Well, the actual question is whether those rights trump the rights of the woman whose body they’re in.

I do think foetuses should have some kind of rights. Just not more so than the rights of women.

Yeah I was arguing against Johnny saying the unborn “don’t exist.”

 

Still hypothetically if there is a concern the fetus can feel the pain of the abortion, arguably a gruesome death, I am not sure the right of the parent to be able to terminate the pregnancy always trumps the right of the fetus. But it’s a medical question first and foremost, rather than one that has to be decided by a bunch of supreme court judges. I think there is consensus fetuses don’t feel pain before the first 24 weeks.

 

Al-x wrote:

Google “If men could get pregnant”

Men can get pregnant. (I mean some men, not all men.)

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

Yeah I was arguing against Johnny saying the unborn “don’t exist.”

If my liver turns into a person and bursts out of my body screaming tomorrow, it was still my liver today.

That’s what “unborn babies” are. They are organs in womens bodies. On a biological level, that’s exactly what they are. Unborn babies as such do not exist, since they become babies at the moment of birth.

Disagree with that all you want:

Not arguing with you.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

Not arguing with you.

Mutually assured victory.

Anonymous wrote:

That’s what “unborn babies” are. They are organs in womens bodies. On a biological level, that’s exactly what they are. Unborn babies as such do not exist, since they become babies at the moment of birth.

I think that’s an extreme standpoint, at least if it’s not just semantics but actually suggests that abortion should be possible up until the very moment of birth.

It is also one that doesn’t consider what it means for parents to lose their unborn child. I’ve known people whose pregnancies went wrong at various stages, and there’s a huge difference when it comes to whether this happens in the first three months or in the fifth/sixth month, when you’ve felt your baby kicking and moving.

I think this whole discussion would be far easier if both sides allowed for some empathy with the other side’s position. Personally, I get why people have a problem with abortion. I just think they should have more problems with the alternatives.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Dave, Arjan Dirkse

Stewart Lee’s column gave me a good laugh this morning.

6 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket, DavidM, Christian, njerry, Todd, lorcan_nagle

Who’s this Osborn guy? Another Tory, or is he a Social Democrat or some such nonsense (or worse, the Green Party!)?

7 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket, DavidM, Dave, Todd, lorcan_nagle, Christian

njerry wrote:

Who’s this Osborn guy? Another Tory, or is he a Social Democrat or some such nonsense (or worse, the Green Party!)?

4 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, lorcan_nagle, Todd

[Al-x]

Chris D wrote:

Of course, I unfortunately expect this will change nothing as we rapidly descend into theocracy.

I looked it up and you are so right.

Theocracy is basically defined as a form of government in which a religion and the government are intertwined

In the case of the US, it is getting to the point where a specific religious view (white evangelical Christianity) is being imposed on the populace in the laws. This proposed overturning of RoevWade is an example. So is the past involvement with the education curriculum of teaching Creation in schools. Then there is (what I still get a kick out of ) no need to worry about flooding by global warming because of what God told Noah in the Bible.

These impositions are all related…The religious right, moral majority…

Now they are  proposing laws about birth control.

Funny. I posted this video on Twitter about these religious guys singing a song and playing a guitar in the aisle of an air flight, imposing the song on everyone on the plane. That is so symbolic…

• This reply was modified 2 years, 8 months ago by Al-x.

Kind of funny to see the whole manufactured “beergate” scandal (read: confected outrage over Keir Starmer and his team having food and drink while working during lockdown) get turned on its head today.

Starmer simply stating that he will resign if fined for a breach of lockdown rules is a simple but kind of perfect strategy, in that it hurts Johnson either way.

If Starmer is fined, he resigns on point of principle and it shows up Johnson and his Tory supporters for exactly who they are. If he is not fined and the accusations of the past couple of weeks are proved false, then it shows up Johnson and his Tory supporters for exactly who they are.

Either way, the move torpedoes the Tory machine’s attempt to defuse all the “partygate” stuff by encouraging people to feel that politicians are all the same. Because either way, whatever the outcome, there will be a marked point of difference between two leaders here.

You can’t help but wonder whether Starmer’s Tory attackers will suddenly feel a bit stupid for calling for him to make this statement now.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd

Al-x wrote:

these religious guys singing a song and playing a guitar in the aisle of an air flight, imposing the song on everyone on the plane

Honestly they should throw them out of the plane. How dare they just go and sing a song. That is a hate crime.

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

Al-x wrote:

these religious guys singing a song and playing a guitar in the aisle of an air flight, imposing the song on everyone on the plane

Honestly they should throw them out of the plane. How dare they just go and sing a song. That is a hate crime.

They were in the air… Arjan.

———————————————

Now some who worked in the previous US Presidential administration and now selling their memoirs. They put in the sensational parts in their books about how he was. Now it comes out that he wanted the police to actually shoot some of the peaceful BLM protesters and to also to bomb Mexico because of the drug cartels.

NOW it comes out. It wasn’t exposed at the time in any real way.

Al-x wrote:

They were in the air… Arjan.

Do you understand sarcasm?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Al-x

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

Al-x wrote:

They were in the air… Arjan.

Do you understand sarcasm?

So you don’t think it’s OK for religious extremists to proselytise to a captive audience?

4 users thanked author for this post.

Daniel R, Al-x, Rocket, Todd

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/12/boris-johnson-plans-to-axe-90000-civil-service-jobs-to-fund-tax-cuts

 

Maybe I’m just not as clever as Boris Johnson, but “fixing” a struggling economy by putting 90,000 more people on the dole seems a bit counter-intuitive to me.

Then I thought, I suppose it’s like struggling companies that make a chunk of staff redundant to reduce costs. I can see the fiscal sense in that. But also, every company I have been in that has done that has continued to spiral downwards and eventually collapse

 

2 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, Todd

DavidM wrote:

every company I have been in that has done that has continued to spiral downwards and eventually collapse

DavidM wrote:

Then I thought, I suppose it’s like struggling companies that make a chunk of staff redundant to reduce costs.

In truth this is often a bit of a confidence trick. When there’s a dip in financial reports shares almost always rise on an announcement of layoffs although I’ve seen first hand that often all they do is pay big severance packages and then hire the same number of people back from contractors, which then sit outside your staff count.

This would be even more favourable an idea to the current UK government as they could send those contracts via the ‘VIP Lane’ to their local landlord or old schoolchum.

It’s becoming pretty blatant kleptocracy nowadays and nobody seems to care. While partygate gained a lot of traction the clear robbery did not.

5 users thanked author for this post.

Martin Smith, Daniel R, lorcan_nagle, Ben, DavidM

[DavidM]

They did make the sensible point that those jobs were ones specifically created to deal with Brexit and then Covid, so all they are doing is returning to 2016 staffing levels. Which kind of makes sense, except (1) Brexit isn’t done and (2) neither is Covid. And even if they were, there’s still the problem of having an extra 90,000 people on the dole, costing the state money and no longer paying tax.

Maybe they could re-train as ballet dancers?

• This reply was modified 2 years, 8 months ago by DavidM.

5 users thanked author for this post.

Christian, lorcan_nagle, garjones, Ben, Dave

Don’t worry, those staff who are sacked will be denied access to benefits due to something something reasons something Rees Mogg.

Meanwhile Dido Harding or Serco or Capita will get a nice, fat, opaquely procured contract.

And there are still people backing Johnson, claiming he’s done a great job, as he craps on them from a great height.

3 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, lorcan_nagle, Todd

6 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Todd, DavidM, Ben, Martin Smith, Arjan Dirkse

Dave wrote:

That’s vile. 30 cents a day for food? You can’t even buy an apple for that. This man should be kicked out of parliament,

Also these kind of claims do not include transport and energy costs.  Its bullshit accounting.

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Todd

Given his upcoming libel case for defaming the food writer Jack Monroe, he may well need to budget for food in the immediate future. This thought warms my heart, I’ll be honest with you.

3 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, lorcan_nagle, Ben

GOP Leaders Criticized for Enabling ‘White Supremacy’ After Buffalo Shooting

As they should be.

5 users thanked author for this post.

Al-x, njerry, Ben, lorcan_nagle, Todd

Meanwhile on this side of the Atlantic pond:

– Cost of living increasing

– Energy bills going way up

– Economic mayhem due to thou-shalt-not-mention-Brexit

– Partygate vs Beergate

– Eternal Labour fratricide

–  Culture wars – expanded to anti-remote working.

So now, now is the time to properly fuck up Northern Ireland!

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle

You can add on a Tory MP arrested for rape there Ben.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Ben, lorcan_nagle

garjones wrote:

arrested for rape

3 users thanked author for this post.

garjones, Todd, lorcan_nagle