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.

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?!"

This guy proposed going after the hospitals that deny admitting privileges to doctors, and these women respond with, well, you can see below.

And I got accused of mansplaining to them for saying "Hey actually that sounds like a decent idea." Part 2 of my thing was just "If legislatures are immune to outside scrutiny, maybe the corporations that own hospitals can be subjected to external pressure."

What the gently caress. How is it mansplaining? I wanted to ask them but the last time I ever disagreed with a feminist activist on Twitter and asked for further explanation of why they disagreed with me, it turned into this whole shitstorm where I ended up being accused of being pro-rapists-in-the-military for daring to suggest that increasing the number of females in the officer corps and number of female NCOs might alleviate the problem, citing some experiences of my sister, who is a Captain in the U.S. Army.

I agree with Twitter feminists 90% of the time, and then 10% of the time they will be going after other people who agree with and support their aims and I'll be like, "Wait, what? Why are you viciously attacking someone that agrees with you?"

I really want someone to tell me not just that I am wrong here but why I am wrong. Why is this a bad idea, and more importantly why is it bad to suggest it, and equally bad to say "Hmm actually not a bad idea."

edit: names blurred only because I am not posting this to call someone out, I just want to get some feedback on the interaction.

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".

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?

" 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.

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?!"

This guy proposed going after the hospitals that deny admitting privileges to doctors, and these women respond with, well, you can see below.

And I got accused of mansplaining to them for saying "Hey actually that sounds like a decent idea." Part 2 of my thing was just "If legislatures are immune to outside scrutiny, maybe the corporations that own hospitals can be subjected to external pressure."

What the gently caress. How is it mansplaining? I wanted to ask them but the last time I ever disagreed with a feminist activist on Twitter and asked for further explanation of why they disagreed with me, it turned into this whole shitstorm where I ended up being accused of being pro-rapists-in-the-military for daring to suggest that increasing the number of females in the officer corps and number of female NCOs might alleviate the problem, citing some experiences of my sister, who is a Captain in the U.S. Army.

I agree with Twitter feminists 90% of the time, and then 10% of the time they will be going after other people who agree with and support their aims and I'll be like, "Wait, what? Why are you viciously attacking someone that agrees with you?"

I really want someone to tell me not just that I am wrong here but why I am wrong. Why is this a bad idea, and more importantly why is it bad to suggest it, and equally bad to say "Hmm actually not a bad idea."

edit: names blurred only because I am not posting this to call someone out, I just want to get some feedback on the interaction.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:


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.

Fandyien posted:

Why can't this be "idiot interjecting his wrong opinion, unsolicited" and has to be "mansplaining"?

Rosalind posted:

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.

Rosalind posted:

It can be either. Mansplaining just ascribes a certain motivation for why this particular idiot decided to interject with his opinion.

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.

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"?

VitalSigns posted:

quote:

VitalSigns posted:

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!

VitalSigns posted:

He called people with college debt "entitled" because they think they deserve a good paying job out of college.

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!

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.

And furthermore admitting privileges are something that are hard to get even at secular hospitals. They didn't set these policies in place to block abortions, it's just the way admitting privileges are granted. Many of them have rules like you have to be a faculty member or you actually have to practice at the hospital. In many cases, it's not something you can just ask for and receive. And then religious hospitals are about as likely to change their policies to allow abortion doctors to get admitting privileges as pro-lifers are to give up and go home.

Focusing on trying to get admitting privileges is a waste of time. Pro-choice advocates know this. Plus if they start trying to focus on this then it seems like they are admitting that admitting privileges are necessary.

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.

VitalSigns posted:

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.

"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."

vyelkin posted:

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.

Swan Oat posted:

Isn't the taxation bit how things were under the wildly successful Articles of Confederation

Fulchrum posted:

Allen West - still projecting like a delusional motherfucker.

Fulchrum posted:

Noted war criminal Allen West - still projecting like a delusional motherfucker.

Fulchrum posted:

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!"

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.

But Mr. Phillips said that “we do believe she will end up having more out-of-pocket costs” under the new plan because of limits on medications and treatments. He said the new insurance policy also makes her costs much more unpredictable than the more regular monthly costs she experienced under the old plan.

Fulchrum posted:

....I got no idea what the hell they're on about.

Fulchrum posted:

....I got no idea what the hell they're on about.

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."

On December 26, 2012, MPD spokesmen confirmed the launch of an inquiry. When asked by CNN on December 27, 2012, if he thought Gregory should be prosecuted, NRA president David Keene responded, "No, I don't think so... I really think what David Gregory did while he was inadvertently flouting the law was illustrating in a very graphic way, perhaps not intentionally, but in a graphic way just how silly some of these laws are." Other gun rights advocates argued that not charging Gregory would show D.C. police to be hypocritical in enforcing gun laws.

On January 8, 2013, a spokeswoman for D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said her department has "completed the investigation into this matter, and the case has been presented to the District’s Office of the Attorney General for a determination of the prosecutorial merit of the case." On January 11, 2013, Attorney General of the District of Columbia Irvin Nathan declared Gregory's action was in violation of 7-2506.01(b),[37] but that he would not proceed with prosecution.

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.

D.C. law requires residents to register every firearm with the police, and only registered gun owners can possess ammunition, which includes spent shells and casings. The maximum penalty for violating these laws is a $1,000 fine and a year in jail.

After entering the house, the police immediately went upstairs, pointed guns at the heads of Mr. Witaschek and his girlfriend, Bonnie Harris, and demanded they surrender, facedown and be handcuffed. His 16-year-old son was in the shower when the police arrived. “They used a battering ram to bash down the bathroom door and pull him out of the shower, naked,” said his father. “The police put all the children together in a room, while we were handcuffed upstairs. I could hear them crying, not knowing what was happening.”

The police found no guns in the house, but did write on the warrant that four items were discovered: “One live round of 12-gauge shotgun ammunition,” which was an inoperable shell that misfired during a hunt years earlier. Mr. Witaschek had kept it as a souvenir. “One handgun holster” was found, which is perfectly legal.