American Politics XI: No Moe Roe(Likely, Anyway)

[Ayytaly]

First, do you think that Ted Bundy would have changed after a 20-year prison sentence? I don't.

And how about a Bernie Maddoff? Should someone who defrauds thousands of people be let out to do it again after a slap-on-the-wrist term?

You call 20 years a slap on the wrist.

I am a prison abolitionist and would not have incarcerated either, but would have relied on other methods to keep people safe. As I have mentioned before I cannot get into the details because they differ for every case and the work of prison abolitionists is dense and I cannot fairly represent it here (if you are interested in the real answers that prison abolitionists have, read their work).

Prison abolitionists are some of the most socially tone-deaf people I've encountered in my life. Affluent, living far from the areas ridden with crime, and their views piss off family members of victims who were either raped, murdered, kidnapped, crippled, maimed, rendered comatose after a brutal assault or robbed of their entire savings thus leading them into poverty. The crimes are mostly done by one individual, but an entire commuity is affected by it. This is something abolitionists seem to either not understand or even care about.

[Salus Maior]

No, we really don't.

True. Ex: Russia.

And basically everywhere else.

[Adamede]

I know the U.S. is not alone in its cruelty, my claim is that we are uniquely cruel (we bring casual cruelty to a new level).

American exceptionalism is a fucking retarded concept no matter if its positive or negative in nature.

[Ayytaly]

I know the U.S. is not alone in its cruelty, my claim is that we are uniquely cruel (we bring casual cruelty to a new level).

American exceptionalism is a fucking retarded concept no matter if its positive or negative in nature.

Anglo-American exceptionalism you mean.

[Senkaku]

I know the U.S. is not alone in its cruelty, my claim is that we are uniquely cruel (we bring casual cruelty to a new level).

...I mean, how? What do we do that's uniquely cruel or that brings cruelty "to a new level," in the context of the vast catalog of past and present human cruelty? I don't know why Chomsky is surprised that people were a little bit creepy at a movie theater one time, you're going to have to do better than that.

[Space Squid]

American exceptionalism is a fucking retarded concept no matter if its positive or negative in nature.

Anglo-American exceptionalism you mean.

Imagine a Frenchman's frustration. "What do we have to do to be taken seriously as an evil imperial power? What, did we not kill enough Algerian children?"

[Ayytaly]

Anglo-American exceptionalism you mean.

Imagine a Frenchman's frustration. "What do we have to do to be taken seriously as an evil imperial power? What, did we not kill enough Algerian children?"

They conquered 1/3 of Africa but the Anglos had a bastard child in America that was too dumb to come up with a unique name to differentiate themselves from the continent.

The US is culturally a teenager who is having an identity crisis and daddy issues. He speaks his father's tongue but does it mockingly. He plays his father's sports but changes the rules ans even names to take the piss out of him. But when business comes up (slavery, genocide, oppression) the US proves to the UK that they are both cut from the same cloth and shit all over the world in the name of Beowulf.

[The Black Forrest]

Noam Chomsky described U.S. culture perfectly.

The culture of the U.S. is disturbingly cruel.

Noam Chomsky says the worst experience of his life was when he was in a movie theater watching a documentary about WWII, and when the atomic bombs fell, instead of feeling horror at the destruction and suffering caused, the people cheered and laughed.

---

The culture of the U.S. rejoices in authoritarianism, is incapable of viewing others outside the U.S. (or at least the "west") as truly human, gains pleasure from revenge and suffering, is centered around money, is moralizing and prudish despite its grotesque appetite for money and power and blood, etc...

We are a very sick country.

Noam Chomsky was a sophist twat.

Indeed. For a few reasons in fact.

If he was upset by that movie; he would have lost it at my uni. They had movie night and one night was Lethal Weapon. When the jumper scene came on. People were shouting JUMP!!!!!

[Eahland]

That headline's kind of misleading. Amtrak doesn't currently stop inside the actual City of Burlington, but the Vermonter, which runs from St. Albans, VT, to DC, via NYC, stops in Essex Junction, which is part of the Greater Burlington conurbation. Green Mountain Transit runs buses from downtown Burlington to the train station in Essex.

They're apparently not bringing the Ethan Allen Express all the way up to the Essex Junction train station, which means, amusingly, if you want to get from Essex Junction to downtown Burlington on the train, it'll take the better part of two days and you'll have to switch trains in New York City. It's like five miles. You can walk it in a couple hours.

I just want them to re-open the station two blocks from my house where the Vermonter used to stop back when it was the Montrealer.

I don’t see how it’s misleading. There will be trains leaving from Burlington.

And there have been Amtrak trains serving Burlington right along. The train station just isn't inside the formal limits of the City of Burlington, because the City of Burlington itself is only a small part of the Greater Burlington conurbation, which comprises the cities of Burlington, South Burlington, Winooski, and surrounding towns, including Essex, Williston, and parts of Colchester and Shelburne. Again, the Essex Junction train station is on the Burlington city bus network.

[Senkaku]

...do you think adoption isn't a market? How is using explicitly capitalist language to describe shoring up the supply of units for the adoption industry unrelated to what Maricarland said? He's literally describing the need to pump out more units for the capitalist machine; Maricarland is just identifying the fact that the "domestic infant supply" for the adoption industry will eventually grow up to become human capital inputs for other industries.

The only quibble I'd have was the part where they said it was a "subconscious" current; it seems quite overt and explicit to me.

It would be one thing if he said that, but he didn't. Actually he didn't say it at all. that phrase came in a reference which was a quote from the fucking CDC, and the reference was to support an argument that kids put up for adoption as infants will be put into a loving home, because there are more couples looking to adopt than there are babies up for adoption.

...do you not understand the implication of that citation? It's literally in the segment where he's laying out arguments made by Americans seeking to restrict abortion. There's a shortfall between the domestic infant supply and the number of people looking to adopt, therefore (supposedly) any woman putting her child up for adoption can rest assured her baby will find a good home, and she can easily do so because of safe haven laws that have made giving up unwanted children who might otherwise have been aborted easier-- in and of itself, these facts are not an argument against abortion. Without the capitalist impulse that Maricarland describes, it requires huge leaps of logic to stitch these three facts together into such an argument; therefore, it's telling that Alito brought it up.

Many people wish to adopt, adoption has become easier, and relatively few infants are available for adoption each year-- why don't we see it as a good thing that most parents wish to keep their children? Why would the solution to this "problem" be to use an abortion ban force the production and relinquishment of additional infants, other than to serve the needs of a market sector (the adoption industry) and the economy more generally? Why is the lack of infants available for adoption a policy problem for the state to solve, and why would it choose to solve it by forcing more women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term? It seems like an insane and degrading concept to me.

why don't you actually read the fucking thing, instead of spouting half baked and cherry picked talking points, you barely comprehend in order to pretend you have any clue what you're fucking talking about.

f bomb, vague complaining, "ur dumb", f bomb, I can see I'm really getting somewhere here

[Celritannia]

Do you think women will just stand by and allow their bodily sovereignty to be taken from them?

Oh cut the bullshit. Women are just as divided on this issue as men are:

43% of women identify as pro-life.
20% of women want abortion banned completely,
45% or women say it should only be legal in certain circumstances.

Stop acting like this is an all women against the evil patriarchy issue, it's utterly nonsense.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abo ... ender.aspx

So 80% do not want it banned, yet 45% of women will have varying differences on what those certain circumstances are, meaning they have no overall idea what restrictions there should be.

Once again, more people, especially women (55%), will oppose a ban.

[Tarsonis]

Oh cut the bullshit. Women are just as divided on this issue as men are:

43% of women identify as pro-life.
20% of women want abortion banned completely,
45% or women say it should only be legal in certain circumstances.

Stop acting like this is an all women against the evil patriarchy issue, it's utterly nonsense.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abo ... ender.aspx

So 80% do not want it banned, yet 45% of women will have varying differences on what those certain circumstances are, meaning they have no overall idea what restrictions there should be.

Once again, more people, especially women, will oppose a ban.

Sure, but the point is, this is not a men vs women issue, the gender stratification is very similar for both genders. So stop trying to frame this as Men oppressing women, because it's simply not true.

[Elwher]

Noam Chomsky described U.S. culture perfectly.

The culture of the U.S. is disturbingly cruel.

Noam Chomsky says the worst experience of his life was when he was in a movie theater watching a documentary about WWII, and when the atomic bombs fell, instead of feeling horror at the destruction and suffering caused, the people cheered and laughed.

---

The culture of the U.S. rejoices in authoritarianism, is incapable of viewing others outside the U.S. (or at least the "west") as truly human, gains pleasure from revenge and suffering, is centered around money, is moralizing and prudish despite its grotesque appetite for money and power and blood, etc...

We are a very sick country.

Noam Chomsky was a sophist twat.

Noam Chomsky was an extreme example of the expert fallacy. He was a brilliant, innovative linguist who, because of that brilliance in one field, is considered an expert by many (himself prime among them) in other unrelated fields.

[The Reformed American Republic]

So 80% do not want it banned, yet 45% of women will have varying differences on what those certain circumstances are, meaning they have no overall idea what restrictions there should be.

Once again, more people, especially women, will oppose a ban.

Sure, but the point is, this is not a men vs women issue, the gender stratification is very similar for both genders. So stop trying to frame this as Men oppressing women, because it's simply not true.

That's my main beef with the pro-choice movement. I'm not anti-abortion and I do not particularly like the "pro-life" movement, but it's not a bunch of evil men oppressing innocent virtuous women.

[Celritannia]

So 80% do not want it banned, yet 45% of women will have varying differences on what those certain circumstances are, meaning they have no overall idea what restrictions there should be.

Once again, more people, especially women, will oppose a ban.

Sure, but the point is, this is not a men vs women issue, the gender stratification is very similar for both genders. So stop trying to frame this as Men oppressing women, because it's simply not true.

Yet there are more men in public office in the US deciding the fate of women. So yes, it is mainly men regulating what women do with their bodies.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Sure, but the point is, this is not a men vs women issue, the gender stratification is very similar for both genders. So stop trying to frame this as Men oppressing women, because it's simply not true.

Yet there are more men in public office in the US deciding the fate of women. So yes, it is mainly men regulating what women do with their bodies.

Men who have been voted in at least in part by a female electorate. If women's suffrage was repealed then you'd have a stronger argument.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Sure, but the point is, this is not a men vs women issue, the gender stratification is very similar for both genders. So stop trying to frame this as Men oppressing women, because it's simply not true.

Yet there are more men in public office in the US deciding the fate of women. So yes, it is mainly men regulating what women do with their bodies.

What matters isn't who's in public office but who's voting for them. These people would not have won their elections without the support of female voters.

[The Jamesian Republic]

Sure, but the point is, this is not a men vs women issue, the gender stratification is very similar for both genders. So stop trying to frame this as Men oppressing women, because it's simply not true.

That's my main beef with the pro-choice movement. I'm not anti-abortion and I do not particularly like the "pro-life" movement, but it's not a bunch of evil men oppressing innocent virtuous women.

Same. My beef with the Pro Life movement is that it feels (though I’m sure they are there) Is that they are seemingly more concerned with Roe than trying to put up a legal and social safety net after Roe.

[Tarsonis]

Sure, but the point is, this is not a men vs women issue, the gender stratification is very similar for both genders. So stop trying to frame this as Men oppressing women, because it's simply not true.

Yet there are more men in public office in the US deciding the fate of women. So yes, it is mainly men regulating what women do with their bodies.

As has been said, women voted for those candidates to, candidates they elected to represent them. If you want a more gender balanced legislative body than more women need to run for office and win. In the meantime it's just a bad faith talking point to bog the issue down in incendiary rhetoric than stand on the merits of your position.

[Celritannia]

Yet there are more men in public office in the US deciding the fate of women. So yes, it is mainly men regulating what women do with their bodies.

As has been said, women voted for those candidates to, candidates they elected to represent them. If you want a more gender balanced legislative body than more women need to run for office and win. In the meantime it's just a bad faith talking point to bog the issue down in incendiary rhetoric than stand on the merits of your position.

And how many women who voted for Republicans had abortions? We cannot determine that people who vote republican are automatically against abortions.

[Tarsonis]

As has been said, women voted for those candidates to, candidates they elected to represent them. If you want a more gender balanced legislative body than more women need to run for office and win. In the meantime it's just a bad faith talking point to bog the issue down in incendiary rhetoric than stand on the merits of your position.

And how many women who voted for Republicans had abortions? We cannot determine that people who vote republican are automatically against abortions.

Now you're standing on hypothetical actions and spurious assumptions of motives. Do you see how flimsy your position is becoming? that's what happens when it's rhetoric that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[Saiwania]

Men in power usually have a mother, a wife, maybe some daughters and other women friends and relatives. That is their weakness. If the women he cares about shame him or grow cold, that is hitting them where it hurts. But that is only if enough or the specific women he listens to, can or will be turned.

Even most of the worst incels out there, might have pause if their momma went after them.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

As has been said, women voted for those candidates to, candidates they elected to represent them. If you want a more gender balanced legislative body than more women need to run for office and win. In the meantime it's just a bad faith talking point to bog the issue down in incendiary rhetoric than stand on the merits of your position.

And how many women who voted for Republicans had abortions? We cannot determine that people who vote republican are automatically against abortions.

Well, what's the alternative? You can't prove it conclusively, so what's the point of pointing out only the sexes of the people who were elected and ignoring the sexes of the people who elected them?

Besides, there are women who got abortions themselves before and/or after protesting against them.

[Dreria]

As has been said, women voted for those candidates to, candidates they elected to represent them. If you want a more gender balanced legislative body than more women need to run for office and win. In the meantime it's just a bad faith talking point to bog the issue down in incendiary rhetoric than stand on the merits of your position.

And how many women who voted for Republicans had abortions? We cannot determine that people who vote republican are automatically against abortions.

Not everyone that votes democrat is pro abortion either

[Kannap]

Biden promised me nothing would fundamentally change and now things are fundamentally changing for the worse, what the hell dude?