|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I guess that makes sense. You wouldn't start fundraising to buy transvaginal ultrasound equipment for clinics, that'd be seen as an admission that it's a reasonable medical requirement. And that would just be a cue for the right to slap on a new requirement, which you'd then have to either fight or accomodate, and so on. The fight isn't going to end, so you might as well keep it where it is.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 07:03 |
|
|
# ? May 23, 2024 15:09 |
|
I would like to thank you for the links about bitcoin. I doubt they'll work. MY friend thinks the government probably had that cofounder of MtGox (or whoever she was) killed. He also started getting onto Truther bullshit, the Illuminati, fluoride in the drinking water, all sorts of that Natural News bullshit. It's been very depressing seeing my friend decline into full blown crazy. He even said whu do we still have boom bust cycles when I said that in the 19th century the economy wasn't stable. He has not responded to any of the sites I linked yet. I doubt he will even read them. But thank you guys anyway. I just hate when I start seeing my fellow Left Wingers start spouting Right wing (conspiracy and non-conspiracy) nonsense.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 10:11 |
|
Memento stultum. We are all one bad day away from being the crazy forwarded email sender- or we already are one, and don't know it. I hope when my day comes, I will be lucky enough to have friends like you around to at least try to pull me out of the pit.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 10:26 |
|
I'm not really touching the poop just yet, but what the gently caress is my in-law trying to say here? " McCain-Feingold is nothing more than an incumbent-protection law--corrupt on its face and embraced by both parties. Incumbents "redistribute" favors worth millions or billions to special interests and to their home districts, write "official" letters to their constituents listing their "achievements", and call press conferences to get free TV time and media coverage. Meanwhile, challengers, relative unknowns, must raise money and pay for any coverage they are able to get. Taxes should be raised locally, then allocated to the respective states for specific purposes. The states should then allocate funds to the federal government again for specific purposes, enumerated by the Constitution. This would drastically reduce the eagerness of politicians to engage in foreign wars and nation-building, and drastically reduce the number and size of "favors" they could hand out thus making politics a less attractive venue to pump influence dollars into." The pivot between campaign finance (which was a pretty poorly made point) and taxes was just confusing as hell.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 10:53 |
|
I think what they're trying to say is that campaigns should be paid from public funds, and specifically state elections should be paid for with federal tax money and vice versa, for whatever reason. Personally I would have no issue whatsoever with strictly public campaign financing and anything else that puts financially impaired candidates on equal footing with well-funded contenders. The role of McCain-Feingold in this is mostly tangential; the law does take steps to limit lovely campaign practices, but created new ones in the process. snorch fucked around with this message at 11:57 on Mar 7, 2014 |
# ? Mar 7, 2014 11:46 |
|
No no, it's Libertarian-speak. He is saying that if the federal government is penniless and weak, that corruption won't be a problem because no one will bother buying favors from politicians that can't do anything.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 14:03 |
|
Keshik posted:Okay, this one is not a crazy neo-con family member but an encounter with Twitter feminism that left me going "What the gently caress?!" I used to follow this person. She has a very nasty habit of jumping all over people for the slightest issue. She once humiliated some poor woman for not knowing what "cis" means - her followers attacked the woman so viciously she was crying. While I agree with the replies to this post explaining why she might have had a problem with what you said, this particular Twitter Feminist is so relentlessly negative and hostile, I couldn't bear following her anymore.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 17:42 |
|
Is Twitter Feminist a title meant to produce anything other than ridicule? It has the same cognitive effect as "Internet Girlfriend" or "Virtual Currency". vvv I see- I thought it was an actual title. I might not actually ever use twitter- does it show? Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Mar 7, 2014 |
# ? Mar 7, 2014 18:31 |
|
Discendo Vox posted:Is Twitter Feminist a title meant to produce anything other than ridicule? It has the same cognitive effect as "Internet Girlfriend" or "Virtual Currency". I use it to refer to Twitter accounts that are almost exclusively about feminism.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 18:38 |
|
Bastard Tetris posted:I'm not really touching the poop just yet, but what the gently caress is my in-law trying to say here? Isn't the taxation bit how things were under the wildly successful Articles of Confederation
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 18:55 |
|
I had to look up "mansplaining," and while it seems like a decently useful term to describe situations that happen in real life, I feel like it sort of loses some of its punch on the internet where 90% of things typed and posted are for the sole purpose of proving people wrong (or just yourself right) in the first place.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 19:01 |
|
Keshik posted:Okay, this one is not a crazy neo-con family member but an encounter with Twitter feminism that left me going "What the gently caress?!" Some feminists use "mansplaining" as an excuse to ignore ideas/criticisms they don't like which happen to have come from men. You will notice that they will find a different excuse to shut down women who agree with you (they've been coopted by patriarchy or whatever). If anybody does this to you, call her out, then just don't talk to her anymore. There are plenty of not-rear end in a top hat feminists out there. Stick to them, instead. Ror posted:I had to look up "mansplaining," and while it seems like a decently useful term to describe situations that happen in real life, I feel like it sort of loses some of its punch on the internet where 90% of things typed and posted are for the sole purpose of proving people wrong (or just yourself right) in the first place. Mansplaining is a serious problem in mixed-gender meetings, usually political but really most kinds. It makes sense to have some kind of way of looking at it an dealing with it then. The problem is that some Active Internet Feminists use it as an excuse to shut people up on the internet, where there is a real equivalent of a mute button: you can block and ban people, so a lot of what helps men dominate discussions is no longer an issue.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 20:50 |
|
I've used the term mansplaining before because yeah it's frustrating as hell when I'm talking statistics and public health (what I do for a living) and some friend-of-a-friend who works as chef starts lecturing me on how statistics actually work. I guess on the internet is harder to discern motive and tone, but mansplanations are still, in my mind, noticeable. Here is a clear example of mansplaining that was actually directed at me recently. Some jerk (who literally works for a "bitcoin venture capital firm" ) that I didn't know chimed in with this: quote:[Rosalind] you are being naive if you think people (ie men) do not get called douches all the time for no good reason. As even my profile pic calls people to say that about me. If a girl is posting "slutty" pictures for the world to see, then yes, I think that is fine if someone wants to call her a douche. To each his own; your anecdotal evidence does not speak for what exists in society. Why is this mansplaining? 1. Discussion was about slut-shaming and women posting sexy photos, but he had to make it about men which is a super common anti-Feminist derailing tactic. 2. He starts by personally insulting me. 3. He butted his head in on some conversation that obviously he knows nothing about just to tell me I was wrong. 4. He deflects criticism with the "to each his own" at the end. He doesn't want to take a position, he just wants to tear me down for expressing mine. Bonus points for people = men too.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 21:05 |
|
Rosalind posted:I've used the term mansplaining before because yeah it's frustrating as hell when I'm talking statistics and public health (what I do for a living) and some friend-of-a-friend who works as chef starts lecturing me on how statistics actually work. That i-know-statistics-better-than-you routine is always both funny and confounding to me. I work in the medical field and interact with data all the time, but when the actual data people start talking i can't follow any of it, and so accord them appropriate respect. Many many doctors think they know stats better than our statistician colleagues though and can get really smug about it.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 21:31 |
|
Rosalind posted:I've used the term mansplaining before because yeah it's frustrating as hell when I'm talking statistics and public health (what I do for a living) and some friend-of-a-friend who works as chef starts lecturing me on how statistics actually work. I guess on the internet is harder to discern motive and tone, but mansplanations are still, in my mind, noticeable. Why can't this be "idiot interjecting his wrong opinion, unsolicited" and has to be "mansplaining"?
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 21:44 |
|
I think sexism is not an accusation to be made lightly, so I only like the term "mansplaining" if there is a noticeable element of sexism besides just a condescending and combative tone, i.e. lecturing women about how they somehow know more about women's experiences than women. This guy definitely qualifies. ("Douche-shaming" isn't a thing, douche.)
MisterBadIdea fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Mar 7, 2014 |
# ? Mar 7, 2014 21:52 |
|
The real problem with "mansplaining" is that it's a fun word and I now want to find creative ways to use it, it's inmexplicable
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 21:53 |
|
Fandyien posted:Why can't this be "idiot interjecting his wrong opinion, unsolicited" and has to be "mansplaining"? It can be either. Mansplaining just ascribes a certain motivation for why this particular idiot decided to interject with his opinion.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 21:54 |
|
Rosalind posted:Why is this mansplaining? Rosalind posted:It can be either. Mansplaining just ascribes a certain motivation for why this particular idiot decided to interject with his opinion. Most of the reasons you explicitly cited for why this is mansplaining don't bear that out, though. If there is extra context here I'm missing, feel free to add it.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 22:23 |
|
Holy gently caress it's the stupid email chain thread can we please not derail it with 15 people parsing the meaning of "mansplaining"?
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 22:27 |
|
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 22:34 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Most of the reasons you explicitly cited for why this is mansplaining don't bear that out, though. If there is extra context here I'm missing, feel free to add it. That's like saying "this is only a cake recipe because it calls for frosting; you can use flour, eggs, and water in other things too". It's a sum of the issues, not that each of them on its own stands as sole proof of mansplaining. Also, it's kind of funny that you respond to "this was a sexist comment directed at me" with "but similar things happen to me all the time and they're not sexist in nature", which is kind of exactly the argument Rosalind was quoting.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 22:39 |
|
Crackbone posted:Holy gently caress it's the stupid email chain thread can we please not derail it with 15 people parsing the meaning of "mansplaining"? I'd rather hear some more people explain alternative arithmetic techniques.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 22:43 |
|
Affording Health Care and Education on the Minimum Wage quote:It's easy, it only takes 10 full-time weeks out of the year at minimum wage to afford to enroll in one year of a 2 year college program. Just don't eat anything or need any car repairs or pay any bills for one week out of every month and you'll be there in no time. Or work two full time minimum wage jobs and be a full time student, then for only one week out of each month you have to find a way to survive on $290 for your 16 hours of labor instead of the $580 you'd be getting from both jobs. I'm not sure when you'll sleep working 80 hours a week and being a full time student but I'm sure you'll manage. Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Mar 7, 2014 |
# ? Mar 7, 2014 22:51 |
|
Oh you#re deep in college debt? Well you should have made better life decisions, college isn't for everyone! What? No jobs? McDonalds is always hiring!
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 22:51 |
|
ArchangeI posted:Oh you#re deep in college debt? Well you should have made better life decisions, college isn't for everyone! What? No jobs? McDonalds is always hiring! Those were the literal arguments that the poster of that link pulled out in the comments. He called people with college debt "entitled" because they think they deserve a good paying job out of college.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 22:56 |
|
VitalSigns posted:He called people with college debt "entitled" because they think they deserve a good paying job out of college. It's so weird how those types don't understand it's not really the student with an entitlement complex. We're all losing out because someone freshly-educated is either being paid poorly, low on free time, or just not working. The graduate is both suffering and not contributing to society as fully as possible. The least we can to is increase minimum wage to living wage so even while employers fail to get the best use out of graduates, the grads themselves can use their free time to be productive. Literally nobody is winning in this scenario. "Heh, that history grad's working at Wendy's! That's better than putting her to use at a museum or cultural site, because it makes me feel better about my job's eventual displacement by automated machinery."
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 23:41 |
ArchangeI posted:Oh you#re deep in college debt? Well you should have made better life decisions, college isn't for everyone! What? No jobs? McDonalds is always hiring! BTW McDonald's is a job for teenagers so you shouldn't be working there scumbag.
|
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 23:41 |
|
I just found an amazing thing: At the end of World War II, the US War Department issued an Orientation Fact Sheet that defined fascism as "government by the few, for the few" and warned that "American fascists [would] try to disguise themselves behind the flag as '100 percent Americans'" and provided this guide to uncovering them: "(1) They pit religious, racial and economic groups against each other, in order to break down national unity; (2) They cannot tolerate the brotherhood of man, or international cooperation ... which contradict the fascist theory of the master race; (3) They indiscriminately pin the label "Red" on people and proposals which they oppose." (from Michaela Hoenicke Moore, Know Your Enemy: The American Debate on Nazism, 1933-1945, p. 348. I was reading this for class, and all I could think was "Holy poo poo, that sounds like the modern Republican Party." As exemplified by the kind of crazy poo poo we see in this thread.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 23:48 |
|
Rosalind posted:Because shaming a hospital isn't going to win you any favors. It's a hospital. Even if they're doing one jerk thing and not giving these providers admitting privileges, it's still generally a place people associate as being a force of good. Pro-choice advocates attacking a hospital would probably hurt them more than help. Can you imagine the pro-life spin? "Pro-Death Advocates Now Going After Hospitals," etc. Dopefish Lives! posted:I used to follow this person. She has a very nasty habit of jumping all over people for the slightest issue. She once humiliated some poor woman for not knowing what "cis" means - her followers attacked the woman so viciously she was crying. While I agree with the replies to this post explaining why she might have had a problem with what you said, this particular Twitter Feminist is so relentlessly negative and hostile, I couldn't bear following her anymore. He also happens to have done more good for this country than any other American in the past fifty years.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 23:57 |
|
It's just one big massive circle for those people, and it all leads back to "gently caress you, got mine". sweart gliwere posted:It's so weird how those types don't understand it's not really the student with an entitlement complex. We're all losing out because someone freshly-educated is either being paid poorly, low on free time, or just not working. The graduate is both suffering and not contributing to society as fully as possible. The least we can to is increase minimum wage to living wage so even while employers fail to get the best use out of graduates, the grads themselves can use their free time to be productive. Literally nobody is winning in this scenario. Looking for a job right now out of college PERIOD is hard as hell. Doesn't matter if you have a degree that looks passable or not. It's what a good portion of people who have that thought process don't understand. It's a lot easier to blame them, then take a look at the bigger problems in this country. FuzzySkinner fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Mar 8, 2014 |
# ? Mar 8, 2014 00:27 |
|
vyelkin posted:I just found an amazing thing: It does sound a lot like the Republicans, but for what it's worth it's also a really weird idea of how fascists would operate. vvvvvv It's fascinating stuff, thank you! I love how by the third paragraph they've decided Japan was also a fascist country. Nope, totally not a term of abuse here, folks. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Mar 8, 2014 |
# ? Mar 8, 2014 00:51 |
|
For the record, here's the actual fact sheet as presented in somewhat tragic formatting by Archive.org. http://archive.org/stream/ArmyTalkOrientationFactSheet64-Fascism/Fascism64_djvu.txt Edit: You're welcome! I've been led up the river enough times by reading things on the Internet and knee-jerking that now I reflexively check my sources, no matter what side is providing the information. History major reflexes I suppose. It's not too weird an idea, the sheet there is discussing how fascists come to power--Hitler and the Nazis rose to power using that exact textbook slate (see also: Reichstag fire, Night of the Long Knives, Pastor Martin Neimoller). Very similar strategies were used in Italy, and to a more divergent extent in Japan (the militarists there divided the nation, turned it on its own moderate elements, downplayed international cooperation (see also: Japan leaves the League of Nations)). Once IN power, it notes, fascists will quickly discard their coats of many colors and set about enforcing those promises they think will benefit them the most, which usually involves breaking the ability to resist among those who are most vulnerable to government attack--the working-class, the poor, religious and racial minorities. You can see extremely similar strategies and outright plotting in a lot of far-right parties today, such as the British BNP. Edit Edit: Defining Japan's regime in that time period as "fascist" IS a little outlier compared to how Germany and Italy were run, and perhaps skewing the term some, but the similarities ARE quite high. "Militarist" is almost certainly better. Redeye Flight fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Mar 8, 2014 |
# ? Mar 8, 2014 03:50 |
|
Fascism in that sense is the ideal of the bandit nation raping and plundering for it's own profits.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2014 10:50 |
|
Swan Oat posted:Isn't the taxation bit how things were under the wildly successful Articles of Confederation I believe so, but I can't really parse out anything the guy says before dropping into mises.org articles so I think I'll do my marriage a favor and just marginalize him and never solicit his opinion on anything ever.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2014 12:02 |
|
The days grow cold as I see joy, life and happiness flit away forever! Liberal Logic 101! "Making us back up our bullshit claims is just being mean!" Little Known Fact - LL101 no longer feels obnligated to even present an argument. ....I got no idea what the hell they're on about. If you think about it, thing I don't like is like thing other people don't like, because thing is bad. Not pointing out that if we're looking at it like traffic, its more like everyone getting home an hour faster except for the people who work from home. Like Jesus said, only war is the appropriate response to anything happening ever! Hate speech is stopped in both cases. Logic remains consistent and perfectly reasoned. Yeah, anyonewh o understands arguments is buying it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquor_license#United_States Allen West - still projecting like a delusional motherfucker.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2014 18:10 |
|
Fulchrum posted:
It's cool that LL loves a literal war criminal so much. It's true, I'm a liberal and I want to divide the country into "People who have not committed war crimes" and "Allen West".
|
# ? Mar 8, 2014 18:45 |
|
Fulchrum posted:Noted war criminal Allen West - still projecting like a delusional motherfucker. Fixed that for you.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2014 18:45 |
|
Fulchrum posted:The days grow cold as I see joy, life and happiness flit away forever! Liberal Logic 101! http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/us/politics/conservative-group-counters-criticism-of-ad-against-health-law.html?_r=0 quote:The main issue over the initial Michigan commercial was whether Ms. Boonstra would face higher out-of-pocket costs because of co-payments and other requirements before she hit a ceiling on total spending, compared with the costs under her previous policy. Critics said that with the lower premiums on the new policy, Ms. Boonstra could end up spending essentially the same amount because of the cap on overall spending. Fulchrum posted:
David Gregory on Meet the Press is a conservative lap dog. I wish he knew how much they hate him, maybe he'd chill out.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2014 19:03 |
|
|
# ? May 23, 2024 15:09 |
|
Fulchrum posted:
I looked into it, and it seems to be a classic case of terrible prosecutor 'discretion'/double standards, to wit; Wikipedia posted:On the December 23, 2012 broadcast of Meet the Press with National Rifle Association chief executive Wayne LaPierre, Gregory displayed what he identified as "a magazine for ammunition that carries 30 bullets". NBC had requested permission from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to include a high-capacity magazine in the segment and were denied. Gregory displayed the magazine on the show, with media reports noting D.C. Code 7-2506.01(b) prohibits the possession of magazines with a capacity in excess of "10 rounds of ammunition." Mark Witschek is on a lot of Townhall and opinion stuff, but maybe the Washington times is alright? Washington Times posted:Mark Witaschek, a successful financial adviser with no criminal record, is facing two years in prison for possession of unregistered ammunition after D.C. police raided his house looking for guns. Mr. Witaschek has never had a firearm in the city, but he is being prosecuted to the full extent of the law. So, the TL:DR is that a media bigwig committed felonies on national TV and isn't prosecuted at all, but a man with an old inoperable relic shell faces two years and a felony charge. It seems pretty ridiculous that anyone should face a felony charge for having a spent shell somewhere in their car or possessions when they drive through DC. LeJackal fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Mar 8, 2014 |
# ? Mar 8, 2014 19:04 |