US Politics Thread

[Federberg]

Literally saying nothing

 

[Moxie]

On the issue of abortion, I don't think we've had a deep enough conversation here about what the effect of many of these extreme new laws have had on women's health, and on that of their healthcare providers.

* Florida has banned abortions after 6 weeks...before most women know they're pregnant. Certainly before they have time to make a considered decision about their futures, including making such a decision with husbands/partners.

* What I suspect many are not paying attention to is that a miscarriage is an abortion, in medical terms. Doctors now find themselves in precarious legal positions if they perform normal procedures for aiding women who are mis-carrying. Here is an example from Oklahoma:

"The molar pregnancy Jaci Statton had would never become a baby. It was cancerous, though. At the last hospital in Oklahoma she went to during her ordeal last month, Statton says staff told her and her husband that she could not get a surgical abortion until she became much sicker.

"They were very sincere; they weren't trying to be mean," Statton, 25, says. "They said, 'The best we can tell you to do is sit in the parking lot, and if anything else happens, we will be ready to help you. But we cannot touch you unless you are crashing in front of us or your blood pressure goes so high that you are fixing to have a heart attack.'"

Oklahoma has three overlapping abortion bans, with different and sometimes contradictory definitions and exceptions. A study published Tuesday along with a commentary in the Lancet medical journal shows hospitals all over Oklahoma are struggling to interpret the laws and create policies that comply with the state's abortion bans. The resulting confusion is having dangerous consequences for women like Statton."

You can hear/read the whole story here: https://www.npr.org/sections/health...ortion-ban-study-shows-confusion-at-hospitals

Similar stories for women with ectopic pregnancies, which also threaten their lives, and the doctors in many states suddenly find themselves uncertain what the law is to help them, so they withhold car.

* Mifrepristone and the attempt at banning it: This medication was approved 20 years ago and has been used safely. It is also essential in aiding women who are experiencing spontaneous abortion, i.e., a miscarriage. Banning this would be a hardship for women who are already losing a pregnancy.

* Many doctors and otherwise healthcare providers are uncertain of the new laws and their implications for themselves, so they are inclined, (as you see above,) to withhold care. This adds stress to an already stressful job. Many are moving to other states, leaving the often small communities where they live with almost no healthcare for women. Others are making provisions for their children, in case they go to prison. (This is not hyperbole.)

* Lack of OB/GYNs will otherwise affect the health of women, in general. The vilification of Planned Parenthood has been doing that for years, already. The less women have access to care for pap smears and mammograms, esp. at low-cost, which has always been provided by Planned Parenthood, the more likely they are to die of preventable diseases.

So, do I think women care about this more than transgender issues? Yes, I do. I think the long-term consequences of this are much more significant. To women, and to men. Are women being "replaced?" By verbiage? Give me a break. Most of the world is "straight," so men and women will carry on doing what we do. But it's just got a lot less-safe in the US for women, in terms of their healthcare. Which means their men are more likely to lose them. What women are threatened by in the US is lack of adequate health care. This is both a short-term AND a long-term problem.

 

[Moxie]

Literally saying nothing

Saying a lot of nothing, and sort of still lying.

 

[Kieran]

On the issue of abortion,

I think your abortion issue has to be solved by legislation. Courts don’t set laws, they interpret them. Laws should be set by legislators. So in that sense, Roe v Wade was a bad thing and everybody should be happy it’s gone.

Are women being "replaced?" By verbiage? Give me a break.

Does ‘verbiage’ mean ‘men?’ You’re not being replaced, by the way - you’re being erased. Any feminist worth their salt should be alert to the dangers of this, instead of shrugging it off because it’s their team who sponsor it…

 

[Moxie]

I think your abortion issue has to be solved by legislation. Courts don’t set laws, they interpret them. Laws should be set by legislators. So in that sense, Roe v Wade was a bad thing and everybody should be happy it’s gone.

It has long been discussed here in the US, on all sides, that the way abortion became a right in this country made it vulnerable, as finally did come to pass, but I disagree that it was bad. The problem with deciding abortion by legislation, at this moment in time, is that partisan legislators are pushing through laws that much of the country, and people in their states, don't agree with. And courts are still trying to set the limits of things, if you're not familiar with the Texas judge who has banned the "abortion pill." A lot of these new laws, and judgements from the bench, are having profound and deleterious affects, as I got into a bit above. But I'm ok if you're not interesting in discussing that.

Does ‘verbiage’ mean ‘men?’ You’re not being replaced, by the way - you’re being erased. Any feminist worth their salt should be alert to the dangers of this, instead of shrugging it off because it’s their team who sponsor it…

You know what "verbiage" means, and you described some yourself: "people with cervixes," and "pregnant people," I think were two of your examples. I am going to agree with you that some of that is a bit ridiculous, and bends itself over backwards to accommodate the very small minority of trans-men that may be pregnant. Let's face it: most people with cervixes consider themselves to be women, and most people who find themselves pregnant likewise consider themselves to be women. Sometimes language sensitivity tips a bit far, but language tends to settle on what works. As a counter to your language worries, consider this, (though I don't know how terms changed in Ireland, so you may not be able to answer in the way a man in the US would): some time in the 70s, we, in the US began to replace male-centric words with gender-neutral ones: "chairperson" for "chairman," "spokesperson" for "spokesman," etc. Those were good choices, in order to make women feel more included in the workplace, in particular, and went some way to aiding women. Did it "erase" men? It did not. Other terms that overreached, like "her-story" for "history" never caught on, which is all well and good.

You're telling me I'm being "erased," even though I'm telling you I'm not. You're also telling me that I'm not worth my "salt" as a feminist if I don't consider this a danger, just because it outrages you. At the risk of causing offense, you are kind of "mansplaining" to me, which I will say is offending me, a bit. You're trying to alert me to a "danger" which I have already told you does not seem like one to me, and you're telling me/us what proper feminists "ought" to be concerned about. It's your right to have your concerns, but I think it goes a bit far to judge me that I don't share them, especially as I have explained why. What I AM concerned about is the imminent threat to women's health and well-being in the US, which I think is very real, and not a passing phase. I do genuinely fear it's going to "erase" some women by killing them.

 

[Kieran]

It has long been discussed here in the US, on all sides, that the way abortion became a right in this country made it vulnerable, as finally did come to pass, but I disagree that it was bad. The problem with deciding abortion by legislation, at this moment in time, is that partisan legislators are pushing through laws that much of the country, and people in their states, don't agree with. And courts are still trying to set the limits of things, if you're not familiar with the Texas judge who has banned the "abortion pill." A lot of these new laws, and judgements from the bench, are having profound and deleterious affects, as I got into a bit above. But I'm ok if you're not interesting in discussing that.

Partisan legislators? Do you have anything in America that’s not partisan? Anything at all? Ice cream? Beer? Sportswear? Is there anything in America not infected by partisan politics? And yet, even if you’re right about the negatives of legislation you don’t like, it doesn’t change the fact that unelected judges, should not be making laws. Because they can be partisan too. This has always been considered bizarre in Europe, where we elect people to govern. We may not like their decisions - and so then we vote them out. And though I don’t follow things too closely with regards to American politics, I have seen it said here that republicans suffered in the midterms because votes they had counted on went against them due to the abortion issue.

That’s how it should be.

You know what "verbiage" means, and you described some yourself: "people with cervixes," and "pregnant people," I think were two of your examples. I am going to agree with you that some of that is a bit ridiculous, and bends itself over backwards to accommodate the very small minority of trans-men that may be pregnant. Let's face it: most people with cervixes consider themselves to be women, and most people who find themselves pregnant likewise consider themselves to be women. Sometimes language sensitivity tips a bit far, but language tends to settle on what works. As a counter to your language worries, consider this, (though I don't know how terms changed in Ireland, so you may not be able to answer in the way a man in the US would): some time in the 70s, we, in the US began to replace male-centric words with gender-neutral ones: "chairperson" for "chairman," "spokesperson" for "spokesman," etc. Those were good choices, in order to make women feel more included in the workplace, in particular, and went some way to aiding women. Did it "erase" men? It did not. Other terms that overreached, like "her-story" for "history" never caught on, which is all well and good.

Language is important. It’s a tool we use to accurately describe things, and I’m sure George Orwell has a billion quotes about how if you control the language you control the minds. So it’s not the same as changing chairman to chairperson because if the person in the chair is a woman then she can’t be the chairman. That’s actually an example of language being used to clarify something. It couldn’t erase men, because it wasn’t referring to a man. And to use these terms to better reflect reality isn’t the same as using terms to better dismantle reality.

Being truthful matters, and yet we’re being told, cajoled, and threatened into believing something that isn’t true. You even did a bit of it there yourself when you said ‘a very small minority of trans men might be pregnant’.

These are women you’re talking about. They’re not men. Men cannot become pregnant.

And when you said that ‘most people with cervixes consider themselves to be women, and most people who find themselves pregnant likewise consider themselves to be women,’ you were talking about people who are women, no matter what they consider themselves to be.

They are women. The truth is important, and yet not only are we’re being threatened to believe lies, we’re being forced openly repeat lies. No civilisation can survive if it decides to replace the truth with lies. You might as well be forcing children to believe that 2+2=5. You’ll have a nation of cowering idiots once you go that route.

When you dismiss all this violence against women and abuse of little little kids by left wing activists as ‘verbiage’ you’ve only done what activists and partisans have done since time immemorial. They try to make their destructiveness seem as though it’s nothing, it’s not a big deal. You’ve shown yourself resistant to ‘the other side’ on this and that’s because you’re not willing to accept that the abuse is being brought to us by your brand of partisans.

You're also telling me that I'm not worth my "salt" as a feminist if I don't consider this a danger, just because it outrages you. At the risk of causing offense, you are kind of "mansplaining" to me, which I will say is offending me, a bit. You're trying to alert me to a "danger" which I have already told you does not seem like one to me, and you're telling me/us what proper feminists "ought" to be concerned about. It's your right to have your concerns, but I think it goes a bit far to judge me that I don't share them, especially as I have explained why. What I AM concerned about is the imminent threat to women's health and well-being in the US, which I think is very real, and not a passing phase. I do genuinely fear it's going to "erase" some women by killing them.

You’ve never explained why you think that activists abusing young children and attacking women at marches where they demand to be heard as women is not something that feminists should be concerned about. In fact, you take the side of the oppressors.

And by the way, using the word ‘mansplaining’ sounds like evasive verbiage. I’m not telling women how they should insert a tampax. I’m talking about things which affect the whole of society, men included…

 

[Moxie]

Partisan legislators? Do you have anything in America that’s not partisan? Anything at all? Ice cream? Beer? Sportswear? Is there anything in America not infected by partisan politics? And yet, even if you’re right about the negatives of legislation you don’t like, it doesn’t change the fact that unelected judges, should not be making laws. Because they can be partisan too. This has always been considered bizarre in Europe, where we elect people to govern. We may not like their decisions - and so then we vote them out. And though I don’t follow things too closely with regards to American politics, I have seen it said here that republicans suffered in the midterms because votes they had counted on went against them due to the abortion issue.

That’s how it should be.

This is complicated, in terms of our system of laws and checks and balances. Judges, particularly the Supreme Court, are there to make decisions about the constitutionality of laws. We don't get to vote on most laws, only the people who make them. And the people we vote for do have to approve of judicial appointments. It's not just one way or the other.

Language is important. It’s a tool we use to accurately describe things, and I’m sure George Orwell has a billion quotes about how if you control the language you control the minds. So it’s not the same as changing chairman to chairperson because if the person in the chair is a woman then she can’t be the chairman. That’s actually an example of language being used to clarify something. It couldn’t erase men, because it wasn’t referring to a man. And to use these terms to better reflect reality isn’t the same as using terms to better dismantle reality.

As you see it.

Being truthful matters, and yet we’re being told, cajoled, and threatened into believing something that isn’t true. You even did a bit of it there yourself when you said ‘a very small minority of trans men might be pregnant’.

These are women you’re talking about. They’re not men. Men cannot become pregnant.

And when you said that ‘most people with cervixes consider themselves to be women, and most people who find themselves pregnant likewise consider themselves to be women,’ you were talking about people who are women, no matter what they consider themselves to be.

They are women. The truth is important, and yet not only are we’re being threatened to believe lies, we’re being forced openly repeat lies. No civilisation can survive if it decides to replace the truth with lies. You might as well be forcing children to believe that 2+2=5. You’ll have a nation of cowering idiots once you go that route.

When you dismiss all this violence against women and abuse of little little kids by left wing activists as ‘verbiage’ you’ve only done what activists and partisans have done since time immemorial. They try to make their destructiveness seem as though it’s nothing, it’s not a big deal. You’ve shown yourself resistant to ‘the other side’ on this and that’s because you’re not willing to accept that the abuse is being brought to us by your brand of partisans.

You’ve never explained why you think that activists abusing young children and attacking women at marches where they demand to be heard as women is not something that feminists should be concerned about. In fact, you take the side of the oppressors.

I addressed your point about language only within the context of your telling me that women are being "erased," and that being a greater threat to women than loss of their rights. I've told you I'm not litigating the trans issue with you anymore. Some of it I can't discuss with you is exactly because of how you pose the question, as above.

And by the way, using the word ‘mansplaining’ sounds like evasive verbiage. I’m not telling women how they should insert a tampax. I’m talking about things which affect the whole of society, men included…

I don't object to your having an opinion, I only object to your telling me what to think and what I should be outraged about, lest I be a poor feminist. Even though you, yourself, agreed that it's a manufactured issue. (You agreed to that "to some extent," in fairness.)

 

[Kieran]

This is complicated, in terms of our system of laws and checks and balances. Judges, particularly the Supreme Court, are there to make decisions about the constitutionality of laws. We don't get to vote on most laws, only the people who make them. And the people we vote for do have to approve of judicial appointments. It's not just one way or the other.

This is similar in Ireland. Judges are appointed by the government and the government are appointed by the people. But judges aren’t free to interpret laws in such a way that their interpretation becomes law, in effect. In the case of Roe v Wade the judges decision would have been passed over to the government to call a referendum and see if that should then become law.

As you see it.

This refers to you saying that using the term chairperson doesn’t erase men any more than using evasive terms about women that actually tell us that the word ‘woman’ has now become officially meaningless, had the effect of demeaning and erasing women.

This isn’t just ‘as I see it.’ It’s ‘as it is.’ Feel free to contradict me.

I addressed your point about language only within the context of your telling me that women are being "erased," and that being a greater threat to women than loss of their rights. I've told you I'm not litigating the trans issue with you anymore. Some of it I can't discuss with you is exactly because of how you pose the question, as above.

I didn’t strawman you. I didn’t even strawwoman you. You can set the terms of your own statements and we can discuss it on that basis, but you’ve already accepted the terms of trans ideology without, it seems, having any defence for it.

I don't object to your having an opinion, I only object to your telling me what to think and what I should be outraged about, lest I be a poor feminist. Even though you, yourself, agreed that it's a manufactured issue. (You agreed to that "to some extent," in fairness.)

I said the trans issue is a manufactured issue ‘to some extent?’ Where was this?

 

[Moxie]

This is similar in Ireland. Judges are appointed by the government and the government are appointed by the people. But judges aren’t free to interpret laws in such a way that their interpretation becomes law, in effect. In the case of Roe v Wade the judges decision would have been passed over to the government to call a referendum and see if that should then become law.

We would have been better served via your system with Roe v. Wade at the time it was decided.

This refers to you saying that using the term chairperson doesn’t erase men any more than using evasive terms about women that actually tell us that the word ‘woman’ has now become officially meaningless, had the effect of demeaning and erasing women.

This isn’t just ‘as I see it.’ It’s ‘as it is.’ Feel free to contradict me.

I don't believe that the term "woman" has become meaningless. I don't feel "demeaned" nor "erased." I think that's, frankly, silly. I don't want to go around and around on this. And I won't be goaded into a conversation about it here, but no one on this forum seems to think that trans men threaten the meaning of "man." No one around here asks 1,000 times for us to define "man." Take it back to the PC thread and leave me out of it, please.

I didn’t strawman you. I didn’t even strawwoman you. You can set the terms of your own statements and we can discuss it on that basis, but you’ve already accepted the terms of trans ideology without, it seems, having any defence for it.

God, I hate that term "straw man." Talk about terms made up for the internet. I have to look it up every time, and still I don't really understand it. I swear it gets misused. Note that I didn't accuse you of that. Don't tell me what I've accepted, and please leave off the trans conversation with me.

I said the trans issue is a manufactured issue ‘to some extent?’ Where was this?

Maybe it was Federberg, then. It was on the Serious PC thread, and I've left that. I'm not going back to look for it. I still believe it's a manufactured issue. To keep it on-topic here, by that I mean in American politics. When the Republicans conceded same-sex marriage, they searched around for a new hot-button issue to rile up the base, and nothing stuck until they hit on transgender issues. Given what a small percentage of the population that it actually affects, it's a cynical ploy to whip up hysteria.

 

[Kieran]

We would have been better served via your system with Roe v. Wade at the time it was decided.

I think so. Roe was so divisive in a country which is naturally divided along a two party system. It’ll probably take a while but eventually you’ll have a system in place - though it maybe different from state to state.

I don't believe that the term "woman" has become meaningless. I don't feel "demeaned" nor "erased." I think that's, frankly, silly. I don't want to go around and around on this. And I won't be goaded into a conversation about it here, but no one on this forum seems to think that trans men threaten the meaning of "man." No one around here asks 1,000 times for us to define "man." Take it back to the PC thread and leave me out of it, please.

Hey you joined in, stop complaining! If the word Woman isn’t meaningless, then obviously I’m bound to ask you to tell me what the word means. Don’t worry, I know you don’t want to go into all this but - the word has become meaningless if we follow innovative leftist beliefs.

God, I hate that term "straw man." Talk about terms made up for the internet. I have to look it up every time, and still I don't really understand it. I swear it gets misused. Note that I didn't accuse you of that. Don't tell me what I've accepted, and please leave off the trans conversation with me.

I took it that you meant straw man when you said you didn’t want to discuss trans with me ‘exactly because of how you posed the question above.’ It implies I posed a question dishonestly or sneakily. I looked and can’t even find the question you’re complaining about.

Maybe it was Federberg, then. It was on the Serious PC thread, and I've left that. I'm not going back to look for it. I still believe it's a manufactured issue. To keep it on-topic here, by that I mean in American politics. When the Republicans conceded same-sex marriage, they searched around for a new hot-button issue to rile up the base, and nothing stuck until they hit on transgender issues. Given what a small percentage of the population that it actually affects, it's a cynical ploy to whip up hysteria.

It’s not a cynical ploy at all - the cynical ploy is to try normalise a blatant lie at the expense of everyone, most especially women and abused children. You really have a very wilful blind spot when it comes to ignoring the abuses…

 

[Moxie]

I think so. Roe was so divisive in a country which is naturally divided along a two party system. It’ll probably take a while but eventually you’ll have a system in place - though it maybe different from state to state.

It was not divisive when it was decided. It was Reagan that started to take it on and help create the Moral Majority. At that time, there was no Christian agenda in politics. Or, say, for my mother, it was to vote for policies that benefitted the poor. She saw that as her Christian duty. This has been eroding access to abortion and women's health care for a long time now. I feel this is the real issue. Women having to go out-of-state to seek care is not a good thing. Losing healthcare providers because they've been intimidated by draconian laws is not a good thing.

Hey you joined in, stop complaining! If the word Woman isn’t meaningless, then obviously I’m bound to ask you to tell me what the word means. Don’t worry, I know you don’t want to go into all this but - the word has become meaningless if we follow innovative leftist beliefs.

I knew this would happen. I tried to tell you I didn't want to talk about it, but you kept on. I wanted to talk about something in US politics, but you mixed it all in. If I ignored part of your post, it wouldn't explain all. So I approached with caution, and caveats. But don't blame me. I've been trying to tell you to keep this where it belongs.

I took it that you meant straw man when you said you didn’t want to discuss trans with me ‘exactly because of how you posed the question above.’ It implies I posed a question dishonestly or sneakily. I looked and can’t even find the question you’re complaining about.

Of course you can't. Because you're blinded to it. I neglected to "bold" it because I've been trying not to engage with it. But this, for example: "You’ve never explained why you think that activists abusing young children and attacking women at marches where they demand to be heard as women is not something that feminists should be concerned about. In fact, you take the side of the oppressors." You have also asked me in the form of a question why I don't respond about activists "abusing children." It's because the question is formed with your opinion imbedded. Look how many opinions you imbedded in the statement I quoted there. THAT to me is straw man, and I don't see any point in responding, because it's like, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" You've decided so much before I even have a chance to respond. I don't refuse because I can't, but because you're actually being unfair.

 

[Kieran]

It was not divisive when it was decided.

It should never have been decided that way, we agreed on this.

I knew this would happen. I tried to tell you I didn't want to talk about it, but you kept on. I wanted to talk about something in US politics, but you mixed it all in. If I ignored part of your post, it wouldn't explain all. So I approached with caution, and caveats. But don't blame me. I've been trying to tell you to keep this where it belongs.

It belongs here. I understand you don’t want to talk about it, while I also see you’re still passing your opinions and misrepresenting others here. Leave it if you want to leave it. Go ahead!

Of course you can't. Because you're blinded to it. I neglected to "bold" it because I've been trying not to engage with it. But this, for example: "You’ve never explained why you think that activists abusing young children and attacking women at marches where they demand to be heard as women is not something that feminists should be concerned about. In fact, you take the side of the oppressors." You have also asked me in the form of a question why I don't respond about activists "abusing children." It's because the question is formed with your opinion imbedded. Look how many opinions you imbedded in the statement I quoted there. THAT to me is straw man, and I don't see any point in responding, because it's like, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" You've decided so much before I even have a chance to respond. I don't refuse because I can't, but because you're actually being unfair.

So now it is a straw man?

And yet….. that was not a question. It was a statement, which began by telling you that ‘you’ve never explained…’

It’s not a strawman either to say that you defend the abuse of children. You always defend it because you defend the activists who are abusing children. You’ve been given so many examples of child abuse, trans wings in hospitals being closed because of abuse, and videos of whistle blowers telling the extent of it, and you never express at all a single doubt that shows that maybe you think the activists in control are doing something wrong…

 

[tented]

Several posts from this thread have been copied to the Serious PC thread, because they touch on both US Politics and Serious PC thread topics; other posts, which deal exclusively with Serious PC topics, have been moved.

 

[tented]

More of what happened is being revealed:

The Tucker Carlson Text That “Set off a Panic” at Fox: “It's Not How White Men Fight”

Excerpt:

In the text, Carlson reacts to three Trump supporters beating one lone protestor. It is unclear what race the protestor was. "Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It's not how white men fight," Carlson writes. "Yet suddenly I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they'd hit him harder, kill him. I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it," the text published by the Times said.

 

[Federberg]

More of what happened is being revealed:

The Tucker Carlson Text That “Set off a Panic” at Fox: “It's Not How White Men Fight”

Excerpt:

In the text, Carlson reacts to three Trump supporters beating one lone protestor. It is unclear what race the protestor was. "Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It's not how white men fight," Carlson writes. "Yet suddenly I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they'd hit him harder, kill him. I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it," the text published by the Times said.

hard to believe they're getting their knickers in a twist about casual racism now. The stuff he's said on air is on par with this so colour me confused...

 

[Jelenafan]

hard to believe they're getting their knickers in a twist about casual racism now. The stuff he's said on air is on par with this so colour me confused...

I always get confused, is “casual racism” somewhere between “formal racism” and “midcentury-modern racism” ? ; )

 

[Federberg]

I always get confused, is “casual racism” somewhere between “formal racism” and “midcentury-modern racism” ? ; )

Honest question… are you a woman? Or do you just identify as one?

 

[Jelenafan]

Honest question… are you a woman? Or do you just identify as one?

In this bromance of ours, lets just say i will identify as the Stephen Curry to your Kevin Durant… ; )

 

[Federberg]

In this bromance of ours, lets just say i will identify as the Stephen Curry to your Kevin Durant… ; )

Identify as whatever you want mate. That's the new world we live in. I identify as myself it's more than enough

 

[Kieran]

Identify as whatever you want mate. That's the new world we live in. I identify as myself it's more than enough

It’s interesting because (and this is not directed at @Jelenafan because I know he was joking) but ‘identity politics’ Is the opposite to ‘I identify as’ politics - though both are equally ignorant, dangerous and an affront to reason - yet both fit snugly with and are championed by the loony left, and that can only be because the left are no longer interested in being rational…