Georgia: Where a miscarriage could land you on death row.

[General Zod]

A general agreement to take a break from that for at least a few weeks might actually be a good idea, y'know? Sure, I could stop checking in on N&P and leave it to you... but do you enjoy getting into an endless succession of self-similar "HOW DARE THEY" threads? I can't imagine actually being made happier by that.

Simply not clicking on those kinds of threads makes me quite a bit happier.

[PeZook]

You know, apart from the terrible implications about the desired role for women, that bills has the distinct quality of trying to punish the ocean for sinking ships by criminalizing a common natural ocurrence. Might as well try to legislate away storms, snow and heat waves.

Don't the Chinese have a saying that the Emperor is powerful, but even he will lose his power if he tried to force his people to walk on their hands?

[Simon_Jester]

You know, apart from the terrible implications about the desired role for women, that bills has the distinct quality of trying to punish the ocean for sinking ships by criminalizing a common natural ocurrence. Might as well try to legislate away storms, snow and heat waves.

Don't the Chinese have a saying that the Emperor is powerful, but even he will lose his power if he tried to force his people to walk on their hands?

Yes. In the Western tradition we have Canute the Great, who supposedly made an essentially similar point- by example, trying to order the tide to stop and going "See? It didn't obey!"

Rulers who try to order around the tide, or the weather, or a woman's biochemistry, are usually the ones who are deeply out of touch with the essential realities of the human condition. Someone should try to make political hay out of that, I think; the human race has had enough of being ruled by fools.

A general agreement to take a break from that for at least a few weeks might actually be a good idea, y'know? Sure, I could stop checking in on N&P and leave it to you... but do you enjoy getting into an endless succession of self-similar "HOW DARE THEY" threads? I can't imagine actually being made happier by that.

Simply not clicking on those kinds of threads makes me quite a bit happier.

So what are you doing here, then?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

A general agreement to take a break from that for at least a few weeks might actually be a good idea, y'know? Sure, I could stop checking in on N&P and leave it to you... but do you enjoy getting into an endless succession of self-similar "HOW DARE THEY" threads? I can't imagine actually being made happier by that.

Simply not clicking on those kinds of threads makes me quite a bit happier.

So what are you doing here, then?

Probably using this forum as an anger outlet like many others.

[Big Phil]

but do you enjoy getting into an endless succession of self-similar "HOW DARE THEY" threads? I can't imagine actually being made happier by that.

The reality is many members of this board do enjoy the "HOW DARE THEY" circle jerks; frankly, so do people in general. How else do explain the prevalence of right wing talk radio? Isn't that just one big "HOW DARE THEY" circle jerk?

If this were another board, I wouldn't even bother to point it out, but the members of SDNet are usually very smug about being better than the rabble on the street, despite a) behaving in exactly the same fashion, b) being indistinguishable from the rabble on the street, and c) often not even meeting the income or education requirements to be considered average rabble on the street. It would be nice if people here would actually maintain the standards we're supposed to adhere to; but instead we end up with jingoistic bullshit like "my country is better than your country," "all Americans are fundie retards," and other imbecilic name calling. Christ, do you remember the debacle with the Senate, where the Senators spent all their time telling each other how smart they were and how lame non-Senators were? And then Mike took their lollies away...

[Eleas]

How else do explain the prevalence of right wing talk radio? Isn't that just one big "HOW DARE THEY" circle jerk?

That's not the reason for why what they do is wrong. The reason is that right-wing talk radio does not feel a need to conform to reality or change their views. You may say whatever you want about human nature, but the fact is, there is no equivalence to speak of. Don't try to conflate the people advocating intolerance with the people who take offence at said intolerance. It's asinine.

If this were another board, I wouldn't even bother to point it out, but the members of SDNet are usually very smug about being better than the rabble on the street, despite a) behaving in exactly the same fashion, b) being indistinguishable from the rabble on the street, and c) often not even meeting the income or education requirements to be considered average rabble on the street. It would be nice if people here would actually maintain the standards we're supposed to adhere to;

And yet in this thread I agreed with you, despite having the option to keep silent. As did others. I didn't do so because I wanted a secret weapon for later, nor, do I think, did others - I was simply in agreement with your point, no matter my feelings against you personally, because I try to be fair. Do those standards you refer to include honesty?

[General Zod]

A general agreement to take a break from that for at least a few weeks might actually be a good idea, y'know? Sure, I could stop checking in on N&P and leave it to you... but do you enjoy getting into an endless succession of self-similar "HOW DARE THEY" threads? I can't imagine actually being made happier by that.

Simply not clicking on those kinds of threads makes me quite a bit happier.

So what are you doing here, then?

I'm in it for the lulz.

[Big Phil]

How else do explain the prevalence of right wing talk radio? Isn't that just one big "HOW DARE THEY" circle jerk?

That's not the reason for why what they do is wrong. The reason is that right-wing talk radio does not feel a need to conform to reality or change their views. You may say whatever you want about human nature, but the fact is, there is no equivalence to speak of. Don't try to conflate the people advocating intolerance with the people who take offence at said intolerance. It's asinine.

You're missing the point - people like to hear their opinions validated, and to hear that everyone who disagrees with them is wrong.

If this were another board, I wouldn't even bother to point it out, but the members of SDNet are usually very smug about being better than the rabble on the street, despite a) behaving in exactly the same fashion, b) being indistinguishable from the rabble on the street, and c) often not even meeting the income or education requirements to be considered average rabble on the street. It would be nice if people here would actually maintain the standards we're supposed to adhere to;

And yet in this thread I agreed with you, despite having the option to keep silent. As did others. I didn't do so because I wanted a secret weapon for later, nor, do I think, did others - I was simply in agreement with your point, no matter my feelings against you personally, because I try to be fair. Do those standards you refer to include honesty?

I'm not really sure what your point is - I'm specifically responding to Simon Jester about the endless circle jerk threads that we get. I'll acknowledge that I myself engage in them from time to time - is that what you're getting at?. It fulfills an emotional need that we all have.

[Eleas]

You're missing the point - people like to hear their opinions validated, and to hear that everyone who disagrees with them is wrong.

So I did. My apologies. I agree that echo chambers don't help anyone. However, I have to say I don't find it an acceptable alternative to silence: i.e, allowing lies to fester unchecked. That's been the methodology of the right wing for too long. This kind of flatly dehumanizing bullshit should provoke outrage.

And yet in this thread I agreed with you, despite having the option to keep silent. As did others. I didn't do so because I wanted a secret weapon for later, nor, do I think, did others - I was simply in agreement with your point, no matter my feelings against you personally, because I try to be fair. Do those standards you refer to include honesty?

I'm not really sure what your point is - I'm specifically responding to Simon Jester about the endless circle jerk threads that we get. I'll acknowledge that I myself engage in them from time to time - is that what you're getting at?. It fulfills an emotional need that we all have.

Well, honestly, I just got a bit annoyed since you seemed to ignore the people who displayed a real willingness to not mindlessly engage in that kind of shit in this very thread, while at the same saying "fuck, SDnet is just like the rest." We can be, but when we make an effort not to be, that should be at least worthy of something, yes?

[Big Phil]

You're missing the point - people like to hear their opinions validated, and to hear that everyone who disagrees with them is wrong.

So I did. My apologies. I agree that echo chambers don't help anyone. However, I have to say I don't find it an acceptable alternative to silence: i.e, allowing lies to fester unchecked. That's been the methodology of the right wing for too long. This kind of flatly dehumanizing bullshit should provoke outrage.

Sure - but if this is supposed to be a discussion board then we should probably discuss things, not just rant and rave uselessly whenever bad shit happens and tell each other that we're all good and they're all bad.

And yet in this thread I agreed with you, despite having the option to keep silent. As did others. I didn't do so because I wanted a secret weapon for later, nor, do I think, did others - I was simply in agreement with your point, no matter my feelings against you personally, because I try to be fair. Do those standards you refer to include honesty?

I'm not really sure what your point is - I'm specifically responding to Simon Jester about the endless circle jerk threads that we get. I'll acknowledge that I myself engage in them from time to time - is that what you're getting at?. It fulfills an emotional need that we all have.

Well, honestly, I just got a bit annoyed since you seemed to ignore the people who displayed a real willingness to not mindlessly engage in that kind of shit in this very thread, while at the same saying "fuck, SDnet is just like the rest." We can be, but when we make an effort not to be, that should be at least worthy of something, yes?

Fair enough - I did use a fairly broad brush. From my perspective, SDNet is a far superior discussion board because, despite the fairly obvious left-wing slant, we don't just shout the opposition down. The mods are pretty good about enforcing the rules of evidence and the like. If I didn't think I could say something like I did, I wouldn't be here. I mean, I don't waste time on white supremacist or right wing discussion boards telling them to stop the echo chamber effect.

[Simon_Jester]

How else do explain the prevalence of right wing talk radio? Isn't that just one big "HOW DARE THEY" circle jerk?

That's not the reason for why what they do is wrong. The reason is that right-wing talk radio does not feel a need to conform to reality or change their views. You may say whatever you want about human nature, but the fact is, there is no equivalence to speak of. Don't try to conflate the people advocating intolerance with the people who take offence at said intolerance. It's asinine.

I think Sanchez has run off with my point in a direction I wouldn't have gone with it.

I'm not talking about any particular viewpoint, or about right-wing talk radio, or anything else specific. What I'm getting at is that endless, repetitive expressions of the same viewpoint that become choked with rage and frustration and bile are not a good thing. It is not a good thing to spend half an hour or an hour a day thinking about "I hate Republicans SO MUCH!" It is not a good thing to have the same argument ten times in a row boil down to who can yell "HOW DARE THEY!" the loudest.

All these things, they aren't healthy.

There's a precedent for banning a topic on this forum that produces a lot of sound and fury but very little actual discussion: the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict is the one that's been enshrined as a permanent ban here.

I don't think it would cause any harm for us to have a short moratorium on "Republican State Senator Proposes Retarded Bill to Destroy World" threads for a week or two. It might do some good, if it gets everyone to take a damn chill pill and step the righteous indignation down a notch, rather than getting into these 'more-outraged-than-thou' contests and congratulating ourselves on how smart and ethical we are for being really really outraged all the time.

[Eleas]

Look, I get what you're saying, both of you. Maybe it isn't healthy.

At the same time, silence isn't an answer. It's not a binary proposition requiring us to choose between howling at the moon or remaining silent.

[Big Phil]

I'm not really advocating a moratorium (temporary or otherwise) on the discussion. I'd just like to see an actual discussion that, like Simon said, doesn't "boil down to who can yell "HOW DARE THEY!" the loudest."

What if rather than ranting about how shitty Georgia is, the conversation in this thread had instead been: "maybe this legislator is inexperienced and what's in there is unintentional? Maybe it is intentional - why would that be? What are the chances of this bill passing? What would the consequences be of this bill passing? How would it be enforced?" You know, actual analysis and critical thinking.

[Simon_Jester]

Look, I get what you're saying, both of you. Maybe it isn't healthy.

At the same time, silence isn't an answer. It's not a binary proposition requiring us to choose between howling at the moon or remaining silent.

Sometimes, even when "silence" in some permanent sense is not the answer, a temporary pause in the shouting is.

That's why I keep using the word 'moratorium:' I'm advocating for something consensual, a mutual agreement to just lay off a specific kind of threads for a little while until we can stop hyperventilating about how the world is coming to an end every time some random fool proposes the Shoot Ourselves In The Foot Bill.

If people have anger they need to work out, it's probably not politics, and can probably be shifted over the the venting threads in HoS. If the anger is political... well, in that case, they're probably suffering from the same problem I'm talking about: allowing one's passions about a political issue to build up to where they stop people from taking a sober look at the issue.

As to 'real discussion,' we do tend to get some of that mixed in with the hyperventilating. But it's hard to say much about some of these bills without getting vitriolic; what do you say about a bill that tries to force the state to place on trial every woman who miscarries? Especially one that appears to violate the presumption of innocence: prove you didn't cause the miscarriage or you're a felon.

It's practically impossible to talk about these things without having that "my god what are they thinking" reaction, I think, even if you're just looking at it from a practical or constitutional standpoint while ignoring the abortion issue.

And we've seen a number of bills like this lately- the South Dakota one broadening the self-defense exemption, for instance. The potential for 'real discussion' of such things isn't all that large. Most of what can be done, we've already done.

[Akhlut]

I'm not really advocating a moratorium (temporary or otherwise) on the discussion. I'd just like to see an actual discussion that, like Simon said, doesn't "boil down to who can yell "HOW DARE THEY!" the loudest."

What if rather than ranting about how shitty Georgia is, the conversation in this thread had instead been: "maybe this legislator is inexperienced and what's in there is unintentional? Maybe it is intentional - why would that be? What are the chances of this bill passing? What would the consequences be of this bill passing? How would it be enforced?" You know, actual analysis and critical thinking.

One of the problems with this bill is the sheer scope of how prevalent miscarriage in humans is. Only some 6 out of 20 fertilized eggs makes it to being born; even if we discount the majority of fertilized eggs that simply fail to implant on the uterus, there is still an enormous number of miscarriages occurring, often for reasons that no one knows about and would require a great deal of testing just to get something of an idea of why it died (chromosome abnormality? placenta detaching just because? the woman was unaware of being pregnant because she regularly misses periods anyway and then exercises too much? in that case, is she a felon?). It almost requires the creation of a special Uterus Police, which then introduces enormous civil rights and right to privacy issues. So, we're left with an option regarding the mindset of the man proposing this bill: he's either completely unaware of what this bill actually entails, or he's actively hostile toward women and their reproductive choices.

[Simon_Jester]

One of the problems with this bill is the sheer scope of how prevalent miscarriage in humans is. Only some 6 out of 20 fertilized eggs makes it to being born; even if we discount the majority of fertilized eggs that simply fail to implant on the uterus, there is still an enormous number of miscarriages occurring, often for reasons that no one knows about and would require a great deal of testing just to get something of an idea of why it died (chromosome abnormality? placenta detaching just because? the woman was unaware of being pregnant because she regularly misses periods anyway and then exercises too much? in that case, is she a felon?). It almost requires the creation of a special Uterus Police, which then introduces enormous civil rights and right to privacy issues. So, we're left with an option regarding the mindset of the man proposing this bill: he's either completely unaware of what this bill actually entails, or he's actively hostile toward women and their reproductive choices.

Hostility towards women's reproductive choices wouldn't be enough. He'd have to basically be hostile to the entire nature of women's reproductive organs- to the fact that they aren't simple, no-muss-no-fuss 100% reliable baby factories given to Real Men by God, for the sole purpose of providing the next generation of Real Men.

I mean, this is on about the same moral plane as a king executing his wife for her 'failure' to bear him a son.

[PeZook]

I think he's just an ideologue, and thus just doesn't think about this at all, or rationalizes the problems away.

Ideologues have this strange quality where they can perfectly reasonable - or even downright smart! - in every issue except for those handled by their ideology, when they turn into flaming retards of the highest order.

So he might think, in passing, about problems with treating every bathroom as a potential murder scene by the police ; But either thinks it will somehow work out, or that it's worth it because his pet issue will be adressed.

It might be worth it to send him a few letters, though...