It is currently Fri Dec 14, 2018 7:02 pm



Reply to topic  [ 2069 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42  Next
 A Corrierino Awareness Thread 
Author Message
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Ergill wrote:
My impression of Morris isn't that he's out to nail people or even lay out all the facts, in a journalistic sense. The way he's said it before - at least when he was talking about The Act of Killing, but what he says bears on his own stuff - he doesn't consider documentaries an extension of journalism or as education for grownups. He's more interested in portraits shading into philosophical exercises. The personality determines the topics of discussion and, through all his cinematic bag of tricks, Morris pieces together these monologues in such a way as to tease out his own obsessions and pet themes. If McNamara is the uber-rationalist lecturer, you're going to get a series of lessons. If Rumsfeld is a whitebread Cheshire Cat, you're going to get a bunch of self-satisfied contradictions, maudlin anecdotes and red herrings. Bannon, meanwhile, is a wannabe philosophe and revolutionary, so you get - well, whatever you get, which I imagine is Bannon's stupid metaphysics strained through Morris' filter. But yeah, well, there are weaknesses that come along with this, since people need more context than Morris is interested in giving at times. It gets too in the subject's head.

But I get that these generalities may not ring for you. I haven't seen Dharma, so maybe I'll get your gripes better when I see it.

I think there's a bit of me being unsatisfied with Morris' approach for this particular subject and American Dharma having weaknesses in execution that aren't in the other two. Morris does adapt stylistically to Bannon's personality with film clips and iconography (including Bannon's own Reagan documentary, which has a 4.1 on IMDb, lol) and the bite-sized dumbassed lessons Bannon draws from them, and the movie's at its best when he bounces Bannon's thinking off those reference points. But I do think there's a rigour in how Morris assembles his discussions with McNamara and Rumsfeld that I don't get with his discussion with Bannon. And I think more than the other films, Morris is trying to combat his subject (relatively speaking) and inserts himself into the proceedings much more often, which makes me think his failings here are specific to this movie's execution and not his entire approach.

_________________
"We're outgunned and undermanned. But you know somethin'? We're gonna win. You know why? Superior attitude. Superior state of mind." - Mason Storm
____
Blog!


Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:30 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

On the subject, I did watch the half hour interview with Bannon at The Economist event, which avoided any direct heckling or other disruptions. It wasn't the most enlightening conversation, but it was illustrative of why we shouldn't be too scared of Bannon's apparent wit to debate him in public.

He did manage to flop over two specific and exceptional blunders. Bannon's opinion of the post-WWII institutions - like NATO, the UN, WTO, etc - is best described by his characterization of them as a liberal "fetish", and links the demise of the American worker and encroaching globalism to these efforts. The interviewer then asked him a pointed question about what he felt the economic value was for the longest sustained peace in Western Europe in history, and Bannon just shrugged, like some kind of fat alcoholic Atlas. It's clear that Bannon does not value peace as an existential benefit. Instead he feels that this peace is some kind of a scam that Europe has been squeezing out of us ever since, unable to fathom the economic privileges that come with stability. Instead, most criticism of post-war America naturally focuses more on how little we share of these privileges, or when our foreign policies hypocritically run counter to our purported liberal values. This corresponds to Trump's own indifference to these values (democracy, rule of law, human rights), and why he needed to be taught exactly why we have a military cooperation with South Korea.

This utter indifference to peace was his first blunder. Then, an audience question challenging his theory that the American worker has been in steady decline since WWII (despite the emergence of the middle class) by asking Bannon at what point in history did the American worker have it best. The answer (swear to god) was "the 19th Century" where Bannon envisioned the American worker having "more freedom". Biting her lip with admirable restraint, the interviewer very quickly pointed out that "Not all American workers were free in the 19th Century", to which Bannon chuckled a "of course", maybe realizing what a stupid stupid answer he had just given.

Bannon's "economic nationalism" is just that farcical, and there really doesn't require that much time or effort to expose it as such.


Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:43 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

yiiiiiiiiiikes



Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:43 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

He's going to be voted in.

This feels like a point of no return.

_________________
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.


Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:47 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Rock wrote:
I think there's a bit of me being unsatisfied with Morris' approach for this particular subject and American Dharma having weaknesses in execution that aren't in the other two. Morris does adapt stylistically to Bannon's personality with film clips and iconography (including Bannon's own Reagan documentary, which has a 4.1 on IMDb, lol) and the bite-sized dumbassed lessons Bannon draws from them, and the movie's at its best when he bounces Bannon's thinking off those reference points. But I do think there's a rigour in how Morris assembles his discussions with McNamara and Rumsfeld that I don't get with his discussion with Bannon. And I think more than the other films, Morris is trying to combat his subject (relatively speaking) and inserts himself into the proceedings much more often, which makes me think his failings here are specific to this movie's execution and not his entire approach.

Fair nuff.

Looking forward to wading into that muck when I can find it.


Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:11 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

An all around awesome hearing for Kavanaugh yesterday.


Image


#makeamericahingedagain


Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:32 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

it may not speak well to the Democrats that they needed a sexual misconduct scandal to have a chance at defeating this nomination; it's not like there aren't plenty of stuff related to his job that deserves focus. (same with Trump)

I don't mean to sound dismissive of the accusations, although I know they are difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. not that it would matter much if they were proven. "c'mon, he was just a kid", "that she is saying this now proves she's a political opportunist", "radical feminism promotes victimhood", "Bill Clinton!", etc.
there is a lot that I find credible, not just her testimony but that plus what has been corroborated..... but I couldn't tell you how much of this is cool, objective, rational analysis and not my own partisan ideology and shit. regardless, there's still plenty I could rag on him about. example


Sat Sep 29, 2018 10:46 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
it may not speak well to the Democrats that they needed a sexual misconduct scandal to have a chance at defeating this nomination; it's not like there aren't plenty of stuff related to his job that deserves focus. (same with Trump)

I don't mean to sound dismissive of the accusations, although I know they are difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. not that it would matter much if they were proven. "c'mon, he was just a kid", "that she is saying this now proves she's a political opportunist", "radical feminism promotes victimhood", "Bill Clinton!", etc.
there is a lot that I find credible, not just her testimony but that plus what has been corroborated..... but I couldn't tell you how much of this is cool, objective, rational analysis and not my own partisan ideology and shit. regardless, there's still plenty I could rag on him about. example

The only thing about this whole incident that seems fishy to me is the timing of it, which really has nothing to do with the accuser (who seemed very reasonable in her hesitation), and I can only fault Feinstein to a certain degree. Instead, I'm more curious about what Republicans knew and when they knew it, because I have to imagine that, at the very least, the pattern of behavior in Kavanaugh's partying, and all the debauchery it entailed, had to have emerged in the due dilligence of those who were tasked with vetting his nomination. I frankly smell a cover-up.

I'm not someone who needed this scandal to turn against Kavanaugh. As you point out, there should be plenty of red flags that should have troubled the public (or, let's be clear here, the press covering his nomination which failed to highlight these flags), namely his blatant mischaracterizations of his judicial opinions during his confirmation, his coy inability to assert his independence to hold the executive branch accountable, and at least one major falsehood. These concerns only cover what we can clearly determine from his recent public behavior (prior to the complete meltdown of his impartial composure on Thursday).

And, of course, none of this has anything yet to do with his actual opinions, which have been hostile to voting rights, privacy rights, environmental protection, net neutrality and consumers' rights to class action suits against corporations. His defense of executive power and intrusive policing should also speak for themselves, since he won't speak for himself on these issues during confirmation. And obviously, his antagonism to women's sexual rights is most relevant to these allegations. I'm less concerned about Roe v Wade at this point than I am about more incremental attacks, such as defunding Planned Parenthood and reducing access to birth control. It's telling that he mischaracterized birth control as "abortion-inducing". Not only does he not understand female plumbing, but he apparently can't discern the difference between conception and contraception. After all, a pro-lifer should have no grounds to oppose contraceptives (which prevent life, not terminate it), unless these religious objections really have more to do with Eve and Original Sin than they have to do with protecting defenseless "babies". It almost seems that Kavanaugh has little to no respect for women's control over their own bodies. I probably don't have to go into detail about his work for Kenneth Starr which makes this entitled hypocrisy even more pronounced.

Now he's in his hole, Bart O'Kavanaugh can just continue to fib about whatever details remain about his frat-ass shenanigans. He can spin tales of mistaken identity and Clinton conspiracies. These sputters of desperation only reveal more and more partisan pettiness.


Sun Sep 30, 2018 12:37 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

In the midst of unprecedented contention and divisiveness, it warms the soul a little smidge that we can all still come together, set our differences aside, and agree that Kanye is still so fucking stoopid.


Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:39 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

OK, sure. "Abolish the 13th". That's bad.

But I'm really referring to that Perrier bullshit.


Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:41 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

as a slight defense, he said he was referring to how it includes an exemption for anyone in prison. though he probably could have worded it better. like, "amend" not "abolish".

assuming he is serious about this and not trying to get headlines. I dunno if I would call Kanye stupid so much as he just seems confused. or just kinda in need of psychiatric evaluation.


Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:31 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
I dunno if I would call Kanye stupid so much as he just seems confused

That's what stupid people do. Get confused.

Let's say we can imagine a Congress that would currently be capable of amending the Constitution, and let's imagine that the criminal exception in the 13th Amendment was eliminated. OK, so what tangible effect would this have on predatory policing or an expanding prison industry?

Trump has the authority to issue a broad commutation for every non-violent drug offender who's already served at least 10 years. That's a modest gesture, but he could do that today. If he wanted to. It's not like he's not trying to piss off Jefferson Sessions these days. I wonder if Kanye is aware that Trump chose to end Obama's clemency program which freed thousands of non-violent drug offenders. I'm guessing not, nor did it occur to him how simple it would be to google such details before championing Trump as the savior of the country's ills in the same breath. Sure, why would 'ye care to keep up with all of this? But isn't it odd how Kanye never wonders why Trump is so harsh on football players who happen to be, I don't know, protesting the exact same predatory policing which feeds the incarceration rate? Gosh, how could he possibly have misunderstood the basis of Trump's most favored form of race-baiting?

Because he's stooopid.


Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:21 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

yeah, I know.... he still has a ways to go in his political acumen.

if you're reading this Kanye, stay safe.


Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:55 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

DaMU wrote:
He's going to be voted in.

This feels like a point of no return.


but in the off chance he doesn't, I hope there isn't too much chaos. sometimes this country feels like a giant pile of oily rags.

there will be chaos either way lol


Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:27 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

I know there is 'bombshell' report in the Times about Trump's origin story. probably not a shock to anyone who already thinks he is a fraud. I'm still too cynical to think this will have much effect (on either Trump's image with his supporters or the chance of a criminal investigation) but I'm willing to be proven wrong.


Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:03 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
I know there is 'bombshell' report in the Times about Trump's origin story. probably not a shock to anyone who already thinks he is a fraud. I'm still too cynical to think this will have much effect (on either Trump's image with his supporters or the chance of a criminal investigation) but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Eh, not really an "origin story". When Father Fred passed away in 1999, the family used shell corporations and other financial sleights-of-hand to avoid paying approximately half a billion in estate taxes. The family was still entitled to inherit some 450 million, but instead received closer to 950 million, a little less than half of that going to Donald directly. There were also millions in trust funds and loans that Trump has never admitted. According to the article, he was a millionaire by age 8.

By 1999, Trump was doing alright. I mean, he was only a few years off from his third corporate bankruptcy, but he had always been able to protect his personal assets. The real implication here is that Trump is a) a tax fraud, and b) not quite as "self-made" as he likes to promote, receiving only some 412X the amount from his father than what he has publicly claimed. Neither of these issues are a) surprising to his critics, nor b) meaningful in any cognizant sense to his supporters.


Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:40 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

A couple of other interesting tidbits in that stroy: In 1990, Donald got caught trying to rewrite his father's will to make Fred's real estate holdings collateral for his imminently failing Taj Mahal (which would be Don's first bankruptcy within a year).

In 2004, Donald received the final payment of the family's liquidation of Fred's empire (against Fred's dying wishes, natch) at 177 million. This was about four months before his fourth bankruptcy, and just as The Apprentice was paying for O'Jays licensing fees to celebrate what a marvelously successful businessman Donald Trump had managed to pretend to be.


Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:08 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

I saw the story about Russian troll bots inflating the Star Wars backlash. I know that the number of commentators suspected of being troll bots is a lot lower than one might think given the amount of headline attention they were given. but it is still kinda notable that outside actors looking to sow discord in America would go down this route at all, right? i.e. just goes to show how serious we are about pop culture. and how easy it can be to exploit those divides.


Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:12 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
i.e. just goes to show how serious we are about pop culture. and how easy it can be to exploit those divides.

Or how desperate those are who want to exploit these divisions. We all know that fanboys are the stormtroopers of American culture, so it's easy enough to send them off into battle.

Now that China and the Saudis are back in the "disappearing" game, maybe Americans can alleviate their guilt a little by comparison.


Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:16 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

status quo lives to fight another day. *sighs in defeat*

probably not going to know until November how I should feel about things in general.


Sun Oct 07, 2018 1:32 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
status quo lives to fight another day. *sighs in defeat*

probably not going to know until November how I should feel about things in general.

I'm just happy that the Repulicans have shown considerable decency in victory, whether it be Trump mocking Ford's testimony, Hatch telling women to "grow up", or the alt-right meme of a picture of a teenage Ford to claim that she was too ugly to sexually assault. (The picture wasn't actually Ford, ftr. Obviously doesn't matter, but I thought I'd point that out. In fact, Snopes is full of recent social media attempts to claim that Ford is everything from a CIA asset to an MK-Ultra plant to an apostle of the child-sacrificing Baal. Good stuff.)

But this piece from The Atlantic nails the appeal of Trump's cruelty. I've been saying the same for, oh, three years now (it was a central point for my fearing the inevitability of President Trump), but I'm happy that someone else, anyone else, can see what I see plainly.


Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:19 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
But this piece from The Atlantic nails the appeal of Trump's cruelty. I've been saying the same for, oh, three years now (it was a central point for my fearing the inevitability of President Trump), but I'm happy that someone else, anyone else, can see what I see plainly.


This is why I have lost any interest (or, honestly, hope) in the notion of coming to agreements with, understanding or breaking bread with those that still support this monster. Because this is what he is, quite obviously. And while I don't believe the majority of his remaining base themselves are necessarily cut from the same monstrous cloth, the culture that they have been swept up in, and apologize for, and condone as long as they are reaping some small pittance of a benefit, makes them complicit to the point that they all can be fucked when it comes to getting my empathy. There have been more than enough exit ramps on the Trump train that any one left with a shred of decency should have taken by now. There are no longer any excuses. I don't care that you are a wonderful mother or father. Or how gentle and charitible you are. Or how you were simply fearful that you'd lose your small business. Or that you honestly don't like everything that Trump says and does. It's not enough. A complete rejection of everything Trump stands for is the only acceptable response at this point, and if you can't do that, you deserve your place in history standing next to those men smiling into the camera during a lynching. Because they really aren't that much better.


Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:18 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
But this piece from The Atlantic nails the appeal of Trump's cruelty. I've been saying the same for, oh, three years now (it was a central point for my fearing the inevitability of President Trump), but I'm happy that someone else, anyone else, can see what I see plainly.


I saw a comment on the social media account of a libertarian acquaintance of mine how the Kavanaugh confirmation may be problematic due to his stance on the 4th amendment and the Patriot Act, to which my acquaintance replied, "Agreed, but I am enjoying the left eating crow." so whatever. whatever makes this easier to swallow. (I'm not going to start an argument with him)

anyway my younger sister partakes in this sort of performative cruelty in crude Trumpian fashion. we did not have the greatest relationship prior to 2015 but seeing this attitude spring up has been kinda alienating (to me at least). I haven't ever called her out on anything, made any comments to her face, started an argument. for one, I know it won't do any good but maybe I'm just too disappointed and still a little disoriented to see such a change (although I don't doubt these sentiments existed before Trump's presidential run). there's a lot of things I can blame myself for involving our relationship; I don't think I was ever explicitly political around her, or never in a direct "you should believe this" kind of way (not that she didn't have access to my social media postings). otherwise she might be directing things to me? she is back to living at home for a short time and my mom was imploring that we have a better relationship and I just had to admit that due to some of things she says, I would rather leave her alone.


Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:30 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

I should consider myself lucky in that I don't have any close relations or friends with even an inkling of Trump support. I think I've mentioned before that among the Republicans in my family and social circle, they all seem to be equally horrified with much of Trump's behavior. A few of them did vote for Trump, for various "pragmatic" reasons (aka Hillaryhate), but none of them bother to defend him and openly call him an embarrassment. Some have ruminated on leaving the party, and have been looking for some kind of emergence of a Kasich or a Sasse to either bring the party back to respectability or to possibly challenge Trump with a third-party run. Personally, I find those hopes a bit adorable, but then I look at the Dems' inability to get to the track much less win the race, and I can't really judge.


Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:47 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

lol now Trump is saying that he felt he had to mock Christine Blasey Ford to "even the playing field".


Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:00 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

crumbsroom wrote:
There are no longer any excuses. I don't care that you are a wonderful mother or father. Or how gentle and charitible you are. Or how you were simply fearful that you'd lose your small business. Or that you honestly don't like everything that Trump says and does. It's not enough. A complete rejection of everything Trump stands for is the only acceptable response at this point, and if you can't do that, you deserve your place in history standing next to those men smiling into the camera during a lynching.


And what are we to do when the broken clock is right twice a day? What are we to do when he accidentally lands on a policy position we support? What are we to do when he mouths words about values we actually hold dear (e.g., right of free expression)? What are we to do when we get an observation we agree with (our trade practices are not sustainable) even when we disagree with the policy that follows (tariffs on EVERYONE!)?

We're getting into Siths "dealing in absolutes," Bush's "You're either with us or against us" territory.

Are you fighting fire with fire, or lowering yourself to the level of those you oppose?

And what are you really prepared to do? Are you going to end relationships? Are you only going to buy products that were never touched by Trump supporters? Are you going to punch Nazis (sounds like being Republican is close enough, or do you also have to have the MAGA hat)?


Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:07 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
I should consider myself lucky in that I don't have any close relations or friends with even an inkling of Trump support. I think I've mentioned before that among the Republicans in my family and social circle, they all seem to be equally horrified with much of Trump's behavior. A few of them did vote for Trump, for various "pragmatic" reasons (aka Hillaryhate), but none of them bother to defend him and openly call him an embarrassment. Some have ruminated on leaving the party, and have been looking for some kind of emergence of a Kasich or a Sasse to either bring the party back to respectability or to possibly challenge Trump with a third-party run. Personally, I find those hopes a bit adorable, but then I look at the Dems' inability to get to the track much less win the race, and I can't really judge.


You're lucky. I'm in Canada and I haven't been able to avoid pro Trump people both in family and at work. My mother, the least politcally aware person I've ever met, was vocal about her support, but I had always figured her approval was based on just being a stupid and naive fuck. She'd shake her admiration off once children started being detained, and would never think to find excuses for this behavior and post them on my Facebook. Let's just say I basically don't talk to her anymore.

My frustration with those who just can't shake their Trump fever has recently been based on the fact that even my brother, who is such a condensed blob of white trash racism that all of his missing teeth are due to being punched out for calling blacks the n word, somehow managed to find the light and proclaim that he wouldn't piss on Trump if he was on fire. These were words that warmed my heart. Seeing him back away from his approval of Trump, who he had once thought was awesome, to me means anyone should have enough of a moral compass to do so. The fact that some still don't though, just terrifies me to think there are actually people worse than my brother in the world. And this fact should scare everyone, because my brother is fucking horrible.


Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:16 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

crumbsroom wrote:
You're lucky. I'm in Canada and I haven't been able to avoid pro Trump people both in family and at work.


Really? There's a Trump base in Canada?

crumbsroom wrote:
My mother, the least politcally aware person I've ever met, was vocal about her support, but I had always figured her approval was based on just being a stupid and naive fuck. She'd shake her admiration off once children started being detained, and would never think to find excuses for this behavior and post them on my Facebook. Let's just say I basically don't talk to her anymore.


If you're letting politics getting in the way of family relationships, it might be on you. Your mom has an opinion. So what? Everyone has an opinion.

crumbsroom wrote:
My frustration with those who just can't shake their Trump fever has recently been based on the fact that even my brother, who is such a condensed blob of white trash racism that all of his missing teeth are due to being punched out for calling blacks the n word, somehow managed to find the light and proclaim that he wouldn't piss on Trump if he was on fire.


What part of Canada are you in? He's lost all his teeth? He's dropping the N-bomb? Where? Why?

crumbsroom wrote:
These were words that warmed my heart. Seeing him back away from his approval of Trump, who he had once thought was awesome, to me means anyone should have enough of a moral compass to do so.


Sounds like you have it upside down. Sounds like you're brother really is a racist POS who happened to jump off the Trump train, and the your mum simply happens to have political views you don't like. I'd rather hang out with your mom.

crumbsroom wrote:
The fact that some still don't though, just terrifies me to think there are actually people worse than my brother in the world. And this fact should scare everyone, because my brother is fucking horrible.


This seems a bit overstated.


Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:30 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:

And what are we to do when the broken clock is right twice a day? What are we to do when he accidentally lands on a policy position we support? What are we to do when he mouths words about values we actually hold dear (e.g., right of free expression)? What are we to do when we get an observation we agree with (our trade practices are not sustainable) even when we disagree with the policy that follows (tariffs on EVERYONE!)?

We're getting into Siths "dealing in absolutes," Bush's "You're either with us or against us" territory.

Are you fighting fire with fire, or lowering yourself to the level of those you oppose?

And what are you really prepared to do? Are you going to end relationships? Are you only going to buy products that were never touched by Trump supporters? Are you going to punch Nazis (sounds like being Republican is close enough, or do you also have to have the MAGA hat)?


The times where Trump stumbles on to something that may resonate with some is not the point. I don't think everything he says should be attacked, simply because he said it. He's said some things (stupidly, of course) that I have vague agreements with, or can understand the sentiment behind. But you can agree with some of his general ideas, and reject him as a man and as a politician. For those who are unwilling to do this because they have some common ground with some of the things he has done while in office, yeah, these people aren't about to get a pass from me anymore. And they have no requirement to give a shit about how I feel about them.

The reality is I'm not a fan of those who have punched Richard Spencer in the face, no matter how reprehensible he is. I'm not in agreement with those who want to burn everything that is associated with Trump to the ground, or protest Sanders or McConnell's dinner plans. I don't even necessarily want a rush to impeach him (although I would admittedly be reflexively happy if they did). But I do want to live in a world where if a politician acts in the way he does, even if he is on your 'side', that you pull away from them. To admit there is a point where it can go too far and no matter how much good you think he is doing policy wise, this person does not deserve your support. Is my blanketing of all those who still unflinchingly support Trump lowering myself to their reactionary standards. Yeah, probably. But I hardly see the benefit anymore of trying to stand above that. And I have mostly tried up until these last few months, hoping not to bring those who voted for him (and will do so again) into the feelings I have for Trump himself. But so many of them are clinging to his pantlegs so tightly, it's become virtually impossible to separate the two anymore.


Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:33 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:

Really? There's a Trump base in Canada?



If you're letting politics getting in the way of family relationships, it might be on you. Your mom has an opinion. So what? Everyone has an opinion.



What part of Canada are you in? He's lost all his teeth? He's dropping the N-bomb? Where? Why?



Sounds like you have it upside down. Sounds like you're brother really is a racist POS who happened to jump off the Trump train, and the your mum simply happens to have political views you don't like. I'd rather hang out with your mom.



This seems a bit overstated.


My mothers political views are little more than she doesn't like immigrants. You might not like to hang out with her as much as you think. I also don't absolve my brother of anything. As I stated, he's horrible. But at least cognizant of morality enough to be aware of what happened in regards to the child separation at the border is a disgusting policy that shouldn't be tolerated by anyone, no matter how much you prefer immigrants not to come to your country.

And I hardly think you know what the hell you are talking about when you say it is political differences which I are what has driven a wedge between me and my mother. My family is predominantly staunchly right wing, where as I'm relatively to the left, and I've got no problems conversing with any of those other relatives regardless of our differences. Same goes with friends, many of whom are also conservatives. To paint the problem with Trump in terms of simply being about political differences is stupid. It's hardly about the right or the left anymore. This is about one man, who is definitively a disgusting, malicious, ignorant, self serving pile of shit. If a similar leader came from the left and was equally bankrupt as a human being, I would have no issues cutting my political allegiance with that person either, and would look on those that stayed along for the ride with them with equal disdain.

As for where I live, it's Toronto. You know, the place where Rob Ford did a stumbling good job being the precurser to all things Trump. If I recall, he also maintained an unflinching 30 percent approval rating in our great and modern metropolis all throughout his trials and tribulations. And for the record, I never had any particular disdain for Ford supporters, as terrible as he was. Rob Ford was not nearly the moral disgrace that Trump has been.


Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:50 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

crumbsroom wrote:
The times where Trump stumbles on to something that may resonate with some is not the point. I don't think everything he says should be attacked, simply because he said it. He's said some things (stupidly, of course) that I have vague agreements with, or can understand the sentiment behind. But you can agree with some of his general ideas, and reject him as a man and as a politician. For those who are unwilling to do this because they have some common ground with some of the things he has done while in office, yeah, these people aren't about to get a pass from me anymore. And they have no requirement to give a shit about how I feel about them.

The reality is I'm not a fan of those who have punched Richard Spencer in the face, no matter how reprehensible he is. I'm not in agreement with those who want to burn everything that is associated with Trump to the ground, or protest Sanders or McConnell's dinner plans. I don't even necessarily want a rush to impeach him (although I would admittedly be reflexively happy if they did). But I do want to live in a world where if a politician acts in the way he does, even if he is on your 'side', that you pull away from them. To admit there is a point where it can go too far and no matter how much good you think he is doing policy wise, this person does not deserve your support. Is my blanketing of all those who still unflinchingly support Trump lowering myself to their reactionary standards. Yeah, probably. But I hardly see the benefit anymore of trying to stand above that. And I have mostly tried up until these last few months, hoping not to bring those who voted for him (and will do so again) into the feelings I have for Trump himself. But so many of them are clinging to his pantlegs so tightly, it's become virtually impossible to separate the two anymore.


Not really anything here I would disagree with.

If this administration has demonstrated anything, it is that having someone in office who is "presidential" actually matters. I can't precisely define what it means to be presidential--it is easier to simply look at Trump to begin by defining its opposite. At best, my hope was that Trump would be a sort of fever that would wake people up to larger patterns of corruption and unfairness--but the fever can also kill the patient. Trumpism may have long-lasting damage to civil discourse and civility.

Personally, I wish that people who lean left and lean right could pause, just for a moment, and consider the ways in which neither party serves their interests. We can't do that if we're just fixated on the "bad orange man." I don' know what follows Trump, but we need real-deal statesmen to step up, people with real virtue and character who are legitimately equipped to lead, rationally.


Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:06 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

I don't know what to do with my parents at the moment. They're kind, charitable, intelligent people who voted for Trump, in their own words, because of how much they disliked Hillary. I can understand the "hold your nose and vote" philosophy. But I also know that my dad listens to Rush Limbaugh and currently objects to Kaepernick protesting, and that my mom enthusiastically said at election time that they were "on the Trump train," and that her biggest fear for me is that I'd go the way of the "paid protestor." But I also know that my dad really disliked how Trump spoke about McCain, and that my mom's had at least two brief moments of clarity: one, when she realized Trump was hiring Goldman Sachs employees after promising to drain the swamp, and two, only a month or so ago, when she finally watched all the Charlottesville footage and saw how neo-Nazism is on the rise.

But they're still in his camp. And when my father sent me some birthday money this year, he jokingly told me he paid for it with the Trump Tax Cut.

To which I wanted to scream at him, "enjoy your fucking blood money while the planet fries and babies scream in cages."

_________________
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.


Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:09 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

crumbsroom wrote:
My mothers political views are little more than she doesn't like immigrants. You might not like to hang out with her as much as you think. I also don't absolve my brother of anything. As I stated, he's horrible. But at least cognizant of morality enough to be aware of what happened in regards to the child separation at the border is a disgusting policy that shouldn't be tolerated by anyone, no matter how much you prefer immigrants not to come to your country.

And I hardly think you know what the hell you are talking about when you say it is political differences which I are what has driven a wedge between me and my mother. My family is predominantly staunchly right wing, where as I'm relatively to the left, and I've got no problems conversing with any of those other relatives regardless of our differences. Same goes with friends, many of whom are also conservatives. To paint the problem with Trump in terms of simply being about political differences is stupid. It's hardly about the right or the left anymore. This is about one man, who is definitively a disgusting, malicious, ignorant, self serving pile of shit. If a similar leader came from the left and was equally bankrupt as a human being, I would have no issues cutting my political allegiance with that person either, and would look on those that stayed along for the ride with them with equal disdain.

As for where I live, it's Toronto. You know, the place where Rob Ford did a stumbling good job being the precurser to all things Trump. If I recall, he also maintained an unflinching 30 percent approval rating in our great and modern metropolis all throughout his trials and tribulations. And for the record, I never had any particular disdain for Ford supporters, as terrible as he was. Rob Ford was not nearly the moral disgrace that Trump has been.


Well, you're right that I don't know your personal situation. And I can appreciate that you may not be sharing the worst things your mom has expressed out of discretion (she is, after all, your mom).

I haven't been to Toronto in a long time. It seemed turbo-lefty to me, kind of like Portland with a CN-Tower. But I was visiting a university campus and was intersecting with university culture. I have a hard time imagining Canadians supporting Trump. Just about every self-identified Canadian I have communicated with hates Trump. This is a real perspective check for me.

As for me, I have never thought much of Trump, not even his alleged "business acumen." I don't believe he's playing 4D underwater chess by saying inflammatory things to keep the left off-balance. But I do know people who support and/or supported him and they're generally good people who are really no closer to changing public policy than I am. I am not willing to cut ties with them or get into endless political debates over stuff that comprises the barest fraction of our relationship.


Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:16 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
And what are we to do when the broken clock is right twice a day? What are we to do when he accidentally lands on a policy position we support? What are we to do when he mouths words about values we actually hold dear (e.g., right of free expression)? What are we to do when we get an observation we agree with (our trade practices are not sustainable) even when we disagree with the policy that follows (tariffs on EVERYONE!)?

The exact problem is that last sentence. I would agree that China's trade policies needed to be confronted, but when Trump botches the execution so badly, by alienating the kinds of international allies which are necessary to leverage China's markets, it proves so self-destructive as to jeopardize more than what we're intending to fix. That's the whole point. I'm not going to give him a cookie for fucking up an important issue, or worse delegitimizing its importance in the short term.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Trumpism may have long-lasting damage to civil discourse and civility.

Again, that's the point, at least the point of the article I posted above. The fact, fairly objective, is that Trump is not a decent man. This isn't my partisan prejudice, it's easily observed, consistent enough to judge an unlikely-to-change 72 year old. That might be excusable if he were just an entertainer who mouths off, but politics is the art of civil discourse, so his damage here should be intolerable to anyone concerned about the integrity of public policy.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
We can't do that if we're just fixated on the "bad orange man."

I think that's a bit reductive to the actual criticisms I've seen posted here. There are real concerns that Trump and his administration represents, from climate change to criminal justice and health care to "debt-ucation". But it matters that the "fuck you pay me" ethos of Trump, reflected in his entire agenda, is very conveniently centered on him as a personality (just as the marketing genius intended), just as his cult of personality among a not insignificant slice of America (some 25-30 million people) which is based more on his de-mean-er, as that Atlantic article spells out, is far more responsive to his bluster than his policies.


Mon Oct 08, 2018 5:16 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
The exact problem is that last sentence. I would agree that China's trade policies needed to be confronted, but when Trump botches the execution so badly, by alienating the kinds of international allies which are necessary to leverage China's markets, it proves so self-destructive as to jeopardize more than what we're intending to fix. That's the whole point. I'm not going to give him a cookie for fucking up an important issue, or worse delegitimizing its importance in the short term.


Sure, but some are so strongly anti-Trumpian, that they're basically praising the opposite of anything he does. We should not lose sight of actualities in the rush to knee-jerk against everything he does or says.

Jinnistan wrote:
I think that's a bit reductive to the actual criticisms I've seen posted here. There are real concerns that Trump and his administration represents, from climate change to criminal justice and health care to "debt-ucation".


My post was making local and not global point. I wasn't taking issue with the thread, but rather a comment within the thread, drawing a rather absolute line between "us" and "them" and standing against everything Trump does or is affiliated with, so that anything less than being a dyed in the wool Democrat makes you a racist.

Jinnistan wrote:
But it matters that the "fuck you pay me" ethos of Trump, reflected in his entire agenda, is very conveniently centered on him as a personality (just as the marketing genius intended), just as his cult of personality among a not insignificant slice of America (some 25-30 million people) which is based more on his de-mean-er, as that Atlantic article spells out, is far more responsive to his bluster than his policies.


Remember when Romney was smeared in 2012? The Republicans have learned how to play dirty. No Mr. Nice Guy in Mom Jeans with a bald eagle cawing in the background. They've embraced their inner-frat-boy and they're hitting back. Don't get me wrong. Trump has to go. His style of politics cannot be tolerated as a permanent fixture of American politics. There is, however, that old saying about wrestling pigs in the mud. You'll both get dirty... ...and the pig likes it. We need adults back in the room. The demonization and hysterics and Game of Thrones/House of Cards instrumentalism has to stop. On Star Trek, this would be where one side realizes they need to lower their shields. The apocalyptic attitude, the idea that giving an inch will result in the end of the world only means more showdowns and more polarization, more people in the center pushed to the right.


Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:28 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

.


Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:58 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
We should not lose sight of actualities in the rush to knee-jerk against everything he does or says.

We also shouldn't rush to knee-jerk every criticism of what Trump does or says into the category of blind antagonism.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
anything less than being a dyed in the wool Democrat makes you a racist.

And this also undersells the fact that an alarming number of Trump's administration have had some serious racist issues, more than, say, any administration I can think of this side of Nixon.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Remember when Romney was smeared in 2012?

Just because Trump's capacity for shameless corruption makes Romney blush doesn't mean that the issues surrounding Bain Capital weren't troubling.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
The Republicans have learned how to play dirty. No Mr. Nice Guy in Mom Jeans with a bald eagle cawing in the background. They've embraced their inner-frat-boy and they're hitting back.

What are talking about? The Republicans wrote the dirty playbook. Roger Stone, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove. Willy Horton was dirty play. Whitewater was dirty play. The Florida recount was dirty play. Kerry's swift boat was dirty play. Birtherism is the mother of dirty plays. Merrick Garland was a dirty play. You think they've only recently learned how to do this? Comrade?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
The demonization and hysterics and Game of Thrones/House of Cards instrumentalism has to stop. On Star Trek, this would be where one side realizes they need to lower their shields.

Yeah, like King Fucking Joffery over here wouldn't delight in immediately sticking his blade into the tender, liberal tear-soaked heart of the first person to drop their shield.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
The apocalyptic attitude, the idea that giving an inch will result in the end of the world only means more showdowns and more polarization, more people in the center pushed to the right.

Oh, and why the right, exactly? Because GOD forbid the right were to ever use apocalyptic language about their various ultimatums. Could these people so concerned with all of this divisiveness find sanctuary in the guy talking about "the losers" or in those on the left talking about collective responsibility and mutual cooperation. You know, the dreaded democratic socialists! Who could possibly turn to such a tyranny of altruism?


Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:01 pm
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
We also shouldn't rush to knee-jerk every criticism of what Trump does or says into the category of blind antagonism.


Sure.

Jinnistan wrote:
And this also undersells the fact that an alarming number of Trump's administration have had some serious racist issues, more than, say, any administration I can think of this side of Nixon.


Guilt by association and a lot of resignations is not exactly proof that people who lean Republican are racist by default.

Jinnistan wrote:
Just because Trump's capacity for shameless corruption makes Romney blush doesn't mean that the issues surrounding Bain Capital weren't troubling.


Wasn't just that. He was alleged to be a horrible sexist, remember? A lot of hay was made out of the "binders full of women comment" to make him sound like a misogynist. By the time our p***y grabber in chief showed up, I think people were tired of the accusations. Make the accusation when it is legit, not to win. Cry wolf too many times and people will shrug when the real wolf shows up.

Jinnistan wrote:
What are talking about? The Republicans wrote the dirty playbook.


In a lot of ways, yes. But their persona--their public facing image was that of your parents in a nice sensible sweater speaking to you soberly about not smoking reefer. At a certain point I think a lot of people got tired of the endless accusations of every Republican as being racist and sexist and so on and just shrugged.

Jinnistan wrote:
Yeah, like King Fucking Joffery over here wouldn't delight in immediately sticking his blade into the tender, liberal tear-soaked heart of the first person to drop their shield.


I'm not talking about the president. I am talking about people in the middle.

Jinnistan wrote:
Oh, and why the right, exactly? Because GOD forbid the right were to ever use apocalyptic language about their various ultimatums. Could these people so concerned with all of this divisiveness find sanctuary in the guy talking about "the losers" or in those on the left talking about collective responsibility and mutual cooperation. You know, the dreaded democratic socialists! Who could possibly turn to such a tyranny of altruism?


It's not easy, but times like this need sanity more than ever. You don't beat Trump by playing like Trump. You beat trump with Obama. If the Republicans want to ride the crazy train, let them. America wants its center back.


Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:43 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Guilt by association and a lot of resignations is not exactly proof that people who lean Republican are racist by default.

What both me and crumbs were talking about were people who specifically lean Trump, a man who, yes, seems to have an awful lot of racist associates, not counting his own racist expressions and policies reflective of that.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Wasn't just that. He was alleged to be a horrible sexist, remember? A lot of hay was made out of the "binders full of women comment" to make him sound like a misogynist. By the time our p***y grabber in chief showed up, I think people were tired of the accusations. Make the accusation when it is legit, not to win. Cry wolf too many times and people will shrug when the real wolf shows up.

Yeah, I don't remember Romney ever being accused of sexual assault. Am I supposed to blur the distinction here? He was chided over the binders because it showed his insensitivity about including women into his campaign leadership and women's perspectives into his policy construction, which is also an important issue, but hardly comparable to sexual assault, so I'm not sure why the comparison should stick.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
But their persona--their public facing image was that of your parents in a nice sensible sweater speaking to you soberly about not smoking reefer.

Not really. Since pretty much Nixon/McGovern, the Republicans have been the "tough love" "bootstraps" party which is largely unsympathetic to the government's role in social services, while the Dms are the "bleeding hearts" who actually care about safety nets and such.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
At a certain point I think a lot of people got tired of the endless accusations of every Republican as being racist and sexist and so on and just shrugged.

As if these accusations were not tied to policies that were detrimental to minorities and women. Even when, say, Clinton passes something like his crime bill, disproportionately affecting black people, it was cheered by the right as a victory and a compromise on the Dems part.

As for sexism, there's a very easy way to demonstrate this in the fight over reproduction rights. I'm staunchly pro-choice, but I don't ridicule or dismiss the sincerely held moral belief that "life begins at conception". What I find intriguing is how this ends up translating into condemning birth control as well, seemingly the best avenue for preventing the need for abortions at all. The pro-life movement since Reagan has equally denounced birth control alongside abortion despite the fact that birth control, being contraceptive, does not involve the moral issue of terminating life. And I don't find it a coincidence that a recent trend among the religious right, from Hobby Lobby to Brett Kavanaugh, is to erroneously (deceptively) describe birth control medication as "abortion-inducing". Even considering the "morning after" pill, it is not an abortifacient. Being basic biology, this fact is not open to debate. So, yes, one has to ask themselves, eventually, whether or not the policies of those who wish to defund Planned Parenthood (97% non-abortion health care services) and deny access to contraceptives - to women exclusively - is not, essentially, a sexist platform that may or may not be reflected in the party's rather generous resilience in defending those men (Donald Trump, Roy Moore, Brett Kavanaugh) who feel entitled to not respect the boundaries of women's bodies. The difference with Dems (with their fair share of handsy creeps) is that, despite similar sexual impropriety, they do not push policies which specifically criminalize women's non-procreative sexual pleasure.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
I'm not talking about the president. I am talking about people in the middle.

But we were talking about the president, and those who specifically support him.

Jinnistan wrote:
You don't beat Trump by playing like Trump. You beat trump with Obama. If the Republicans want to ride the crazy train, let them. America wants its center back.

So, again I ask, why then do you think that this divisiveness, largely instigated by Trump, will inevitably push people....to the right? Because of Antifa? Obama remains the most popular Democrat in the country (probably world), so why are we going to let a marginal group of dipshit anarchists start defining Democratic norms?


Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:44 pm
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
What both me and crumbs were talking about were people who specifically lean Trump, a man who, yes, seems to have an awful lot of racist associates, not counting his own racist expressions and policies reflective of that.


So, do conservatives specifically "lean Trump"? Do Republicans? How many implicit racists are we speaking of here? How big is the basket and deplorable are the deplorables?

Jinnistan wrote:
Yeah, I don't remember Romney ever being accused of sexual assault.


He was accused of misogyny. https://www.care2.com/causes/mitts-miso ... ebate.html

As The Guardian put it, "The phrase objectified and dehumanized women. It played right into the perception that so many women have feared about a Romney administration – that a president Romney would be sexist and set women back."

It was hysterical bullshit. Anyone watching the debate knew that, at best, it was simply an odd turn of phrase.

Cry wolf on "Binders of full of women" and the village shrugs when Trump arrives.

Jinnistan wrote:
Since pretty much Nixon/McGovern, the Republicans have been the "tough love" "bootstraps" party which is largely unsympathetic to the government's role in social services, while the Dms are the "bleeding hearts" who actually care about safety nets and such.


Nixon was the first president to put forward the idea of UBI. And the "tough love" image is at least a message (officially) of love, a concerned but stern parent. The official persona was still dignified. Now it's just about winning.

Jinnistan wrote:
As if these accusations were not tied to policies that were detrimental to minorities and women. Even when, say, Clinton passes something like his crime bill, disproportionately affecting black people, it was cheered by the right as a victory and a compromise on the Dems part.


It's one thing to argue that a policy has unintended consequences for certain communities, quite another to claim that it is part of a genocidal plan to target black people. It's almost impossible for "get tough" crime legislation to NOT have a disproportionate effect on the black community, because the demographics of crime show more crimes committed (as a matter of percentage) by African American males. Does this have something to do with poverty? Absolutely? Does some of this have to do with profiling? Undoubtedly. But the fact remains. Call out systemic and institutional racism with all due sincerity, but the greatest threat to the life of a young black male is NOT a police officer, but another young black male. If you're a conservative with a Puritanical streak and a misplaced belief the getting tough on crime will fix things, you will want these policies, in part, out of a desire to help all communities. That much doesn't make you racist--it just commits you to a bad paradigm of penology which creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Jinnistan wrote:
The pro-life movement since Reagan has equally denounced birth control alongside abortion despite the fact that birth control, being contraceptive, does not involve the moral issue of terminating life. And I don't find it a coincidence that a recent trend among the religious right, from Hobby Lobby to Brett Kavanaugh, is to erroneously (deceptively) describe birth control medication as "abortion-inducing". Even considering the "morning after" pill, it is not an abortifacient.


When my wife and I were first looking into birth control in the first years of our marriage we turned to a doctor in our family and asked about potential abortifacient effects and oral contraceptive. She initially said "No," but then looked into the matter and was surprised to report "Yes." Indeed, I used to have an old sheet describing the effects of the pill which advertised the prevention of the attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterine wall as a design feature of the drug (an oral contraceptive) described in the text.

The medical function of the pill became a hot button after the Hobby Lobby case, and motivated parties are increasingly looking to downplay or up-play the abortifacacient effect to circumnavigate or fortify pro-life objections to birth-control. The common rejoinder to downplay concerns about this once advertised feature of the pill is that such effects are not "proven" to which Dr. William Colliton (link here http://www.uffl.org/vol10/colliton10.pdf) responds:

William Colliton wrote:
The authors repeatedly state that no scientific proof has appeared in the medical literature demonstrating that the pill is abortifacient. They are correct. The reason is that such proof would require collecting, fixing, staining, and serially sectioning all vaginal contents from mid-cycle through menstruation and demonstrating the presence of an early embryo. No one has the time, the money, or the motivation for such an undertaking.


This is seconded by Mirkes (2002) in Ethics and Medicine, Vol. 18, pp. 11-22, who states,

Mirkes wrote:
I certainly agree that there is no direct evidence that the COC causes abortions. And if its post-fertilization effects (its anti-implantation mechanisms operative pre-, peri-, or post-implantation) were studied directly, it would either involve techniques and procedures that are immoral by virtue of destroying early embryonic life or involve studies that would be moral but non-definitive since they would include indicators such as the Early Pregnancy Factor (EPF) [a pregnancy-associated immunosuppressive protein detected in maternal sera by rosette inhibition assay that, to date, provides a less than acceptable accuracy index]. However, in the rest of this segment, I hope to substantiate that there is good indirect evidence that post-fertilization effects play a small, yet not negligible, role in loss of embryonic life induced by the COC. The principal deficiency of the indirect evidence is a paucity of published data that prevents the quantification of that risk in absolute terms.


Mirkes article is a response to Goodnough (2001), in his article, Redux: Is the Oral Contraceptive Pill an Abortifacient? in the journal Ethics & Medicine (Vol. 17, pp. 37-51). Goodnough strikes a middle ground approach, arguing that chemical miscarriages caused by the pill are NOT intended and thus covered under the doctrine of double effect.

The Colliton source offers a block-quotation from Randy Alcorn, a minister who set out to prove that the pill is NOT abortifacient:

Alcorn quoted in Colliton wrote:
On March 24, 1997, I had a lengthy and enlightening talk with Richard Hill, a pharmacist who works for Ortho-McNeil’s product information department. (Ortho-McNeil is one of the largest Pill Manufacturers.) I took detailed notes: Hill was unguarded, helpful and straightforward. He never asked me about my religious views or my beliefs about abortion. He did not couch his language to give me an answer I wanted to hear. I asked him, “Does the Pill sometimes fail to prevent ovulation?” He said “yes.” I asked, “What happens then?” He said, “The cervical mucus slows down the sperm. And if that doesn’t work, if you end up with a fertilized egg, it won’t implant and grow because of the less hospitable endometrium”. I then asked Hill if he was certain the pill made implantation less likely. “Oh yes,” he replied. I said, “So you don’t think this is just a theoretical effect of the Pill?” He said the following, which I draw directly from my extensive notes of our conversation: “Oh, no, it’s not theoretical. It’s observable. We know what an endometrium looks like when it’s rich and most receptive to the fertilized egg. When the woman is taking the Pill, you can clearly see the difference, based both on gross appearance–as seen with the naked eye–and under a microscope. At the time when the endometrium would normally accept a fertilized egg, if a woman is taking the Pill it is much less likely to do so”.


Now, TO BE CLEAR, this is NOT a big issue to me. By my lights, what happens is that a hardly fertilized egg will fail to attach to the uterine wall. This is a side-effect, not a main-effect of the drug, but it is a side-effect which reinforces the main function in a way that when (before this shit got hopelessly political) was something that was considered a beneficial aspect of the pill.

Jinnistan wrote:
Being basic biology, this fact is not open to debate.


Not only is there a debate in the pages of medical and ethics journals by people who have more letters than we do, you seem to be unaware that this debate even exists. You have a little FAQ page from Princeton that is supposed to slam-dunk this point? Not quite.

The abortifacient effect is either a "feature" (even if a secondary one), a "bug" (although one arguably permitted under the doctrine of double effect), or is unproven (the old "big tobacco" line). The last notion is challenged by scholars like Lanfranchi (2018) in Linacre Quarterly (Vol. 85, pp. 148-154) who claim (some info available here https://www.readbyqxmd.com/journal/44341) in the article "A Scientific Basis for Humanae Vitae and Natural Law: The Role of Human Pheromones on Human Sexual Behavior Preferences by Oral Contraceptives and the Abortifacient Effects of Oral Contraceptives" biochemical evidence for the abortifacient properties of the pill.

At any rate, the abortifacient properties of oral contraceptives is not a "hate fact."

Jinnistan wrote:
So, yes, one has to ask themselves, eventually, whether or not the policies of those who wish to defund Planned Parenthood (97% non-abortion health care services) and deny access to contraceptives - to women exclusively - is not, essentially, a sexist platform that may or may not be reflected in the party's rather generous resilience in defending those men (Donald Trump, Roy Moore, Brett Kavanaugh) who feel entitled to not respect the boundaries of women's bodies. The difference with Dems (with their fair share of handsy creeps) is that, despite similar sexual impropriety, they do not push policies which specifically criminalize women's non-procreative sexual pleasure.


And this is tone deaf to the fact that a good many Americans are neither absolutely for or against abortion, but want some limitations. Putting all these concerns into the frame of bad old white dudes who want to turn America into a Handmaid's Tale marginalizes by erasure the very real voices of women who have varying opinions on the issue. This is the sort of bullshit caricature that your opposition is starting to care less about. You're part of the problem.


Jinnistan wrote:
So, again I ask, why then do you think that this divisiveness, largely instigated by Trump, will inevitably push people....to the right? Because of Antifa? Obama remains the most popular Democrat in the country (probably world), so why are we going to let a marginal group of dipshit anarchists start defining Democratic norms?


It's not just Antifa. If only it were Antifa.


Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:17 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
So, do conservatives specifically "lean Trump"? Do Republicans? How many implicit racists are we speaking of here? How big is the basket and deplorable are the deplorables?

I would more precisely say that authoritarians lean Trump. What we could call "deplorable" would be either those mentioned in that Atlantic article (the thing we were discussing) who find affinity in cruelty or those who merely are willing to allow Trump's deplorable behavior to go unchallenged (those watching him shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave without wavering their loyalty). I would also say that the modern GOP is certainly complicit in excusing and tolerating Trump's deplorable behavior. I can't say it better than the very many conservatives who no longer feel at home in the Republican party.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
It was hysterical bullshit.

Heh, no pun intended.

That "care2" site seems obscure, so let's look at a more mainstream assessment. Here, the issue is more fairly treated as illustrating Romney's lack of women among his leadership stemming throughout his political career. It shows negligence more than hate, but this is also on the more benign side of the sexist spectrum. It is still (possibly unconscious) sexism. It is the presumption not to include women in his brain-trust. And it was a perfectly legitimate issue for Obama to seize upon considering his far more inclusive record of powerful women in his administration.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Nixon was the first president to put forward the idea of UBI. And the "tough love" image is at least a message (officially) of love, a concerned but stern parent. The official persona was still dignified. Now it's just about winning.

Yeah. Nixon entertained the notion of UBI, and the "war on drugs", the latter explicitly inspired by his desire to incarcerate and harass his perceived political enemies. That's his metric of playing dirty to win. It's only slightly less compassionate than ordering the CIA to illegally disrupt an FBI investigation into the creeps on his payroll.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
It's one thing to argue that a policy has unintended consequences for certain communities, quite another to claim that it is part of a genocidal plan to target black people.

I don't buy the "unintended consequences" line. There's plenty of extant evidence that Clinton was aware that his policies (three strikes, mandatory minimums) would disproportionately affect non-violent drug offenders under the guise of being a purported anti-violence effort. And that's all before the unambiguous premonition of Hillary's "superpredators". Just as there's plenty of examples of Republicans cheering their effort as "a Democratic capitulation to the right-wing incarceration agenda". Now, does any of this make it a "genocidal plan"? Please. "Hysterical bullshit" indeed.

Without getting into the nitty-gritty of the influencing factors of crime and poverty, I'll suffice to point out the very clear policy disparity between the parties when it comes to funding education, health care (nutrition and exposure), safe housing, urban investment and programs to give young black boys alternatives to the street. Also, maybe the mass incarceration of their fathers may not be such a hot idea.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Now, TO BE CLEAR, this is NOT a big issue to me.

Sure, sure. Which may be why it was the bulk of your response.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Not only is there a debate in the pages of medical and ethics journals by people who have more letters than we do, you seem to be unaware that this debate even exists. You have a little FAQ page from Princeton that is supposed to slam-dunk this point? Not quite.

Let's define what the debate is: In the modern definition of "conception", fertilization is not a synonym but one of several parts of the conception process. Implantation is regarded as the final step in the conception process. Birth control which prevents the uterine implantation of a fertilized egg then prevents the completion of the conception process. We can go tit for tat on corroboration from the respective medical fields, but the point is that the reason why medical literature has not used "conception" and "fertilization" as synonyms since 1957 is due to a better understanding of how this process works and understanding how many fertilized eggs fail to implant on a natural basis (a lot of lost souls for those who believe life begins at fertilization). In any respect, as you admit that this prevention of implantation is a marginal side effect of contraception, and hardly larger than the natural probability of implantation failure, it really is a reach to say that there's a valid moral argument here.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
At any rate, the abortifacient properties of oral contraceptives is not a "hate fact."

It's dodgy at best, and wholly dependent on where one considers the end of the conception process and the beginning of pregnancy.

As a fig leaf, I'll offer a source that you can likely be more sympathetic with: "For this reason, according to the medical definition, a woman is not considered pregnant until the developing embryo successfully implants the lining of the uterus. Some church officials argue that a woman is pregnant at the moment of fertilization. If that is the case, then it follows that 60 to 80 percent of the time, this natural process results in a massive loss of life."

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
And this is tone deaf to the fact that a good many Americans are neither absolutely for or against abortion, but want some limitations.

Well, no shit. Access to birth control is one such way to limit the need for abortions. Is the attempt among the religious right to define contraceptions as abortifacients a lesser extreme than the (non-existent) demand on the left to have unfettered access to late-term abortions, "babies ripped from their mothers' wombs" as Trump artfully described it?

Now, I'm going to have to point out a recurring issue. Whether or not it is an unconscious habit or a rhetorical tactic, you have a stubborn tendency to frame your debates into these obnoxious either/or, all/nothing absolutes, and this is a prime example. Since this rhetoric is very useful at strawmanning your opponent (as if I've offered any indication of believing that Americans are absolutely one thing or another), I get suspicious about the intent, but it just might be that you don't recognize what you're doing. Perhaps a lot of these issues could be clarified if we can agree that, for example, not all conservatives are Trump supporters, not all Democrats are Antifa, and not all abortions fall into simple categories of murder and necessity.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
It's not just Antifa. If only it were Antifa.

Hm-mm. And who are these other roaming hordes of violent Democrats out there? I'm not sure if you've noticed but, so far, the invocation of "civil war" has tended to be pretty one-sided lately.


Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:08 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:

Wasn't just that. He was alleged to be a horrible sexist, remember? A lot of hay was made out of the "binders full of women comment" to make him sound like a misogynist. By the time our p***y grabber in chief showed up, I think people were tired of the accusations. Make the accusation when it is legit, not to win. Cry wolf too many times and people will shrug when the real wolf shows up.

Funny thing. When people on the left hear sham-moderate chiding that their false or indecisive accusations of prejudice result in an inevitable backlash of prejudice, either embraced or placidly shrugged off, suddenly their own inevitable psychological mechanisms lock into place. Who, indeed, can blame them for shutting down when someone tells them with a straight face that it's natural to accept a venal, unfit, polarizing, doddering bigot as president because (brace for devastating example) some partisans overplayed Romney's "binders full of women" gaffe? Automatisms for everyone! Is this a fact of nature that we've intuited? Are we tacitly condoning this fact? Does it matter? The thumbing of the nose is the true and basic point here.

Or better yet, no. If you want to paint a convincing picture of moderation, then by all means, don't equate it with moral vacuities like this.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:

It's not easy, but times like this need sanity more than ever. You don't beat Trump by playing like Trump. You beat trump with Obama. If the Republicans want to ride the crazy train, let them. America wants its center back.

I'm for Obama speaking up, but the notion that Obama can reliably cleanse us of Trumps is tenuous considering that - well - we already had Obama for eight years, and Trump cemented himself in politics specifically against him.


Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:03 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
I would more precisely say that authoritarians lean Trump.


Let's not forget the replication crisis in social science, especially psychology. And there has been a spate of "Conservatives are Icky" pieces, it's a veritable cottage industry, suggesting that this is motivated research thus confirmation bias is a real concern.

Even if we stipulate the acceptability of the finding (the notion has face validity). OK, authoritarians lean Trump. What does this mean? Is it that people who prefer "law and order" prefer Trump? Full on Nazis? Icky people? What?

Jinnistan wrote:
What we could call "deplorable" would be either those mentioned in that Atlantic article (the thing we were discussing) who find affinity in cruelty or those who merely are willing to allow Trump's deplorable behavior to go unchallenged (those watching him shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave without wavering their loyalty). I would also say that the modern GOP is certainly complicit in excusing and tolerating Trump's deplorable behavior. I can't say it better than the very many conservatives who no longer feel at home in the Republican party.


There's cruelty afoot everywhere these days.

Jinnistan wrote:
Here, the issue is more fairly treated as illustrating Romney's lack of women among his leadership stemming throughout his political career. It shows negligence more than hate, but this is also on the more benign side of the sexist spectrum. It is still (possibly unconscious) sexism. It is the presumption not to include women in his brain-trust. And it was a perfectly legitimate issue for Obama to seize upon considering his far more inclusive record of powerful women in his administration.


It was bullshit. A cheap shot. Given the choice between Romney and Obama again, I am pretty sure we'd swing for Obama, but this was petty. Also, let's not forget the shit that Hillary pulled on Obama back in 2008. And today's DNC has the DNA of the Clinton machine.

Jinnistan wrote:
I don't buy the "unintended consequences" line. There's plenty of extant evidence that Clinton was aware that his policies (three strikes, mandatory minimums) would disproportionately affect non-violent drug offenders under the guise of being a purported anti-violence effort. And that's all before the unambiguous premonition of Hillary's "superpredators". Just as there's plenty of examples of Republicans cheering their effort as "a Democratic capitulation to the right-wing incarceration agenda". Now, does any of this make it a "genocidal plan"? Please. "Hysterical bullshit" indeed.


America has a Puritanical streak, especially when it comes to drugs. The very idea that we were fighting a "War on Drugs" (a war we're still "fighting" today) metaphorically legitimizes getting tough on drug crime. Is this implicitly classicist? I think so. Do classicist policies negatively impact people of color? Seems to be the case. But does that mean that the policy was designed and intended to do this? And even if the framers of the legislation be implicated as racist, what of the average family who is worried about their kids getting strung out on drugs? Is that a racist impulse?

Don't get me wrong. Our prison policies are bullshit. The war on drugs doesn't work. Marking people who have served their times as "felons" for life (e.g., "fucked for life") is unfair. We know that rehab works better than retribution, empirically. Even so, I don't think that the average American who wants to be tough on crime is directly motivated by racial hatred. There are plenty of African Americans who also want to get tough on crime and it would be insulting to just pass this off as "internalized racism" erasing any dissenting opinion that doesn't fit your preferred narrative.

Jinnistan wrote:
Sure, sure. Which may be why it was the bulk of your response.


I am simply pointing out how you are factually in error and standing on your error as "undebatable."

I do NOT say "don't use the pill because it has abortifacient effects." Rather, I say, "Go ahead and use the pill, but also know that it has some abortifacient effects."

Jinnistan wrote:
Let's define what the debate is: In the modern definition of "conception", fertilization is not a synonym but one of several parts of the conception process. Implantation is regarded as the final step in the conception process.


No, that is ONE conception of "conception." Here are two definitions of the term from medicinenet.com

1. The union of the sperm and the ovum. Synonymous with fertilization.
2. The onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation of the blastocyst into the endometrium.


You are lazily trying to claim the latter conception of conception as the ONLY one. Sorry, no. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200. Contrary to your claim that this is all neatly settled fact, when the definitions themselves are controversial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning ... ontroversy

Jinnistan wrote:
We can go tit for tat on corroboration from the respective medical fields,


And that we can, completely repudiates your claim that it is "undebatable."

Jinnistan wrote:
In any respect, as you admit that this prevention of implantation is a marginal side effect of contraception, and hardly larger than the natural probability of implantation failure, it really is a reach to say that there's a valid moral argument here.


Well, that's why I don't trip about it. That and I don't think that a barely fertilized egg is a "person" (at least not under any medical standard that I can justify). But the pill is an abortifacient. If, for your opposition, "life begins" at conception and "abortion is the termination of a life in the womb," your little semantic soft-shoe here is disingenuous bullshit--you aren't speaking to the definition that matters to them and which is still at play in the wider ethical and medical debate.

Jinnistan wrote:
Access to birth control is one such way to limit the need for abortions. Is the attempt among the religious right to define contraceptions as abortifacients a lesser extreme than the (non-existent) demand on the left to have unfettered access to late-term abortions, "babies ripped from their mothers' wombs" as Trump artfully described it?


The religious right draws the line at conception (as fertilization). We don't have to agree with them that personhood begins here, but if this were your sincere belief, this would really put your back against the wall. As Catholics, my wife and I had some tough choices to face regarding birth control in relation to church dogma on the issue (they were and probably still are selling a version of the "rhythm method" as the way to go). Ultimately, we decided to go our own way and used Depo-Provera, which had some unfortunate side-effects but seemed to be the best option at the time.

The abortion issue is fucked up because it is so polarized. The loudest voices are screaming, giving the impression that our only options are 1. No access to birth control post-fertilization, or 2. No limits to access, at all, ever, under any circumstances. The middle ground is where you get shot in the crossfire. Even so, I do not think that we should be conceptually beholden to the right anymore than the left.

Jinnistan wrote:
Now, I'm going to have to point out a recurring issue. Whether or not it is an unconscious habit or a rhetorical tactic, you have a stubborn tendency to frame your debates into these obnoxious either/or, all/nothing absolutes, and this is a prime example.


You were the one purporting to speak for women in moralizing generalizations.

feel entitled to not respect the boundaries of women's bodies

criminalize women's non-procreative sexual pleasure

You have to make up your mind as to whether your wearing your Handmaid's Tale cap or not.

Jinnistan wrote:
Perhaps a lot of these issues could be clarified if we can agree that, for example, not all conservatives are Trump supporters, not all Democrats are Antifa, and not all abortions fall into simple categories of murder and necessity.


Perhaps, but that requires movement from both sides.

Allow me to refer back to the original post which prompted my recent participation in this thread. I quote in full,

Crumbsroom wrote:
This is why I have lost any interest (or, honestly, hope) in the notion of coming to agreements with, understanding or breaking bread with those that still support this monster. Because this is what he is, quite obviously. And while I don't believe the majority of his remaining base themselves are necessarily cut from the same monstrous cloth, the culture that they have been swept up in, and apologize for, and condone as long as they are reaping some small pittance of a benefit, makes them complicit to the point that they all can be fucked when it comes to getting my empathy. There have been more than enough exit ramps on the Trump train that any one left with a shred of decency should have taken by now. There are no longer any excuses. I don't care that you are a wonderful mother or father. Or how gentle and charitible you are. Or how you were simply fearful that you'd lose your small business. Or that you honestly don't like everything that Trump says and does. It's not enough. A complete rejection of everything Trump stands for is the only acceptable response at this point, and if you can't do that, you deserve your place in history standing next to those men smiling into the camera during a lynching. Because they really aren't that much better.


Now, Crumb walked that back a bit in his next post and I can certainly understand the need to vent during the most surreal administration in history(?), but that venting can also create momentum which pushes into further polarization.

There is a certain portion of the Trump base with which conciliation may not be desirable or even moral, but the vast majority of people who occasionally lean right or vote "R" should not be excluded from the table of rationality (you dummies!) and dignity (you racists!), as this is the end of the road for civil discourse. I am hearing more people on both sides grumbling about civil war like it would be a good thing.


Jinnistan wrote:
And who are these other roaming hordes of violent Democrats out there? I'm not sure if you've noticed but, so far, the invocation of "civil war" has tended to be pretty one-sided lately.


Ask Maxine Waters "No peace, no sleep!" It's the rhetoric that is tilting out of control (Yes, Trump's rhetoric is insane. Yes, he is an idiot. Yes, you have a prima facie case for the 7-Year-Old's defense plea of "He started it!").

As for calls to civil war. I am seeing it more and more on both sides. After Kavanaugh was approved people starting posting to r/politics (which turned into a salt mine) about buying ammo and getting ready. You have little groups like "Redneck Revolt." There are more and more articles like this one

http://gawker.com/who-will-win-the-upco ... 1783675459


Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:42 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
The very idea that we were fighting a "War on Drugs" (a war we're still "fighting" today) metaphorically legitimizes getting tough on drug crime. Is this implicitly classicist? I think so. Do classicist policies negatively impact people of color? Seems to be the case.

This may explain the ubiquitous racism of 19th century philologists.


Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:48 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Riiiight, I forgot Melvin was Yarn.

_________________
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.


Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:55 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
And there has been a spate of "Conservatives are Icky" pieces, it's a veritable cottage industry, suggesting that this is motivated research thus confirmation bias is a real concern.

Well, you can look at each of the studies linked in that article, or maybe even take note of what political scientists have determined. But I feel pretty comfortable saying that the strong authoritarian thread through Trump and his supporters is a thing.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
OK, authoritarians lean Trump. What does this mean? Is it that people who prefer "law and order" prefer Trump? Full on Nazis? Icky people? What?

It's a word with a definition. "Authoritarians".

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
A cheap shot.

I'm still not sure why you find this analogous to credible claims of sexual assault.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
America has a Puritanical streak, especially when it comes to drugs. The very idea that we were fighting a "War on Drugs" (a war we're still "fighting" today) metaphorically legitimizes getting tough on drug crime. Is this implicitly classicist? I think so. Do classicist policies negatively impact people of color? Seems to be the case. But does that mean that the policy was designed and intended to do this?

I'm not sure if you got the gist of what I was saying. The "war on drugs" was explicitly started as an excuse for Nixon to crack down on black liberation and anti-war organizations. I meant that as an obvious demonstration of Republican hardball, that the "win at all cost" attitude is hardly a recent development among the "Mr. Nice Guys" of the GOP. But, sure, if you will, Nixon designed and intended his drug policy to disrupt and demolish black groups who were then asserting their civil rights.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
what of the average family who is worried about their kids getting strung out on drugs? Is that a racist impulse?

Would you like me to get whoever you'd prefer to argue with on the line? Let me put this issue (which I haven't brought up) this way: I think that those who can recognize the disproportionate effect of drug policies on the black community, despite drug use being statistically the same in the white commmunity, but still choose to ignore the disparity are probably guilty of racial apathy at least. It's not their community, so they simply don't care.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
I do NOT say "don't use the pill because it has abortifacient effects." Rather, I say, "Go ahead and use the pill, but also know that it has some abortifacient effects."

Actually, I was hoping you'd bother to read those links, but I'll provide some clarity:

The American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists wrote:
Contrary to assertions made by some, emergency contraception and IUDs do not cause abortions, and therefore are not abortifacients....

Emergency contraception (EC) does not cause medical abortions....EC however only works before a pregnancy is established. Review of the scientific evidence suggests that EC cannot prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. EC is not effective after implantation; it cannot end a pregnancy and is not an abortifacient....

Pregnancy: Is established only at the conclusion of implantation of a fertilized egg. This scientific definition of pregnancy is also the legal definition of pregnancy, accepted by governmental agencies and all major U.S. medical organizations....

Abortifacient: An agent that disturbs an embryo already implanted in the uterine lining, after a pregnancy has been established...

There is no scientific evidence that FDA-approved emergency contraceptives affect an existing pregnancy; no EC is classified as an abortifacient.

OK. So who's debating this?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy

"The controversy is not primarily a scientific issue". Oh. Well, then, I think I'll stick with the OB-GYNs on this one.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
You are lazily trying to claim the latter conception of conception as the ONLY one.

No, just the legal one.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
But the pill is an abortifacient.

Which pill would that be? It's statements like this that give me doubts. None of the FDA-approved birth control pills are classified as abortifacients. But there is one, mentioned in the National Catholic Reporter article I posted: "There is only one drug approved to induce abortion. It is called RU-486 (mifepristone) and is not on the FDA's list of approved contraception. It is available only by prescription and no employer is forced to pay for it as part of an employee health plan."

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
If, for your opposition, "life begins" at conception and "abortion is the termination of a life in the womb," your little semantic soft-shoe here is disingenuous bullshit--

I think that setting the threshold of "abortion" at "post-fertilization" is some kind of electric slide of sophistry, but whatever. It's medically recognized that post-fertilization implantation is essential for life to begin and therefore the threshold of abortion is set at disrupting an already implanted embryo.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
you aren't speaking to the definition that matters to them

Well, this is true.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
The loudest voices are screaming, giving the impression that our only options are 1. No access to birth control post-fertilization, or 2. No limits to access, at all, ever, under any circumstances. The middle ground is where you get shot in the crossfire. Even so, I do not think that we should be conceptually beholden to the right anymore than the left.

That's not the left's position though. The left does not support aborting a child the day before it's due, except in extreme cases of jeopardizing the mother's life. Maybe the reason why the dialogue is so toxic is because of these strawmen. There are lots of people who find a third-term abortion ban to be reasonable (again, with the above exception) but who still would like the post-fertilization forms of birth control approved by the FDA and, oh, are not medically classified as abortifacients to begin with.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
You have to make up your mind as to whether your wearing your Handmaid's Tale cap or not.

There remains religious efforts, from both Catholics and Evangelicals, to enforce the doctrine of Original Sin from Genesis 3:16. All of the "sinful" sex described in the bible is of the non-procreative variety: sodomy, masturbation, homosexuality, and women having sex without the pains of childbirth that God cursed on Eve. This is at the root of the religious objection to contraception. This was at the heart of the Hobby Lobby owners beliefs. For her sin of eating the forbidden fruit (why do you think they became ashamed of their genitals?), women became sexually subjugated. There's also some stuff about "property" and not menstruating in bed, etc etc. It's all the same shit.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Allow me to refer back to the original post which prompted my recent participation in this thread. I quote in full...

Yeah, sounds like crumbs is talking about Trump's "supporters" and his "remaining base". You're interpreting that as "all conservatives" for some reason.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
There is a certain portion of the Trump base with which conciliation may not be desirable or even moral, but the vast majority of people who occasionally lean right or vote "R" should not be excluded from the table of rationality (you dummies!) and dignity (you racists!)

Again, not talking about "people who occasionally lean right or vote R". We were talking about Trump supporters, who, btw, happen to have a capacity for irrationality and racism. This attempt to make them seem more moderate than they actually are is not going to fly.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Ask Maxine Waters "No peace, no sleep!"

I'm sorry, the article I posted was quoting people talking about secession. Political demonstrations, or even agitations, do not rise to the level of "civil war".

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
http://gawker.com/

Are they still in business? Good for them.


Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:11 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

I can't even begin to tell you how pissed off I am that they pre-empted Jeopardy to show Brett Kavanaugh arriving at the Supreme Court. :rotten:


Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:23 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Janson,

The line-by-line is getting bloated here. I'm going freestyle.

You have lost the claim that there isn't a debate to be had about whether oral contraceptives are abortifacients. You have several links I have provided from peer-reviewed academic journals, one as recent as 2018 which argues the contrary claim (i.e., that they are). Not only is there a debate to be had, it's a debate that is ongoing. And again, I don't really care that much that pill has an abortifacient effect for reasons we have already discussed. I would not stand against someone using birth control on grounds of these effects. This is NOT, however, to say that conservatives are simply wrong in claiming that common oral contraceptives have an abortifacient effect. Moreover, to try to spackle over the concerns of those who do worry about the issue ("See I have a source that makes your issue go away by definition!") on moral grounds is undignified and underhanded. And this drives people who might stand with you in the opposite direction.

We're bickering about how many conservatives Crumb is talking about when he draws his line of exclusion. The fewer people he is including the less objectionable his claim is, but also the less interesting his claim is (every group has crazies). Crumb's first statement was pretty spicy. Here is why that initial blast was troubling to me.

I remember having a conversation not too long after 9-11 and a person told me that the attack was a brilliant move on the part of the attackers. I asked why. The person said that they had successfully constituted Muslims and the Middle East as an enemy. That is, that a very small minority had successfully altered the American image of a part of the world that, in effect, made our enemy much larger than it really was. I was skeptical. Then we passed the Patriot Act. Then we hastily went to war. And then Muslims around the country started getting harassed regularly. And then I realized that he was right. A tiny minority hijacked our image of the world by constituting a group to be much larger than it was, creating an enemy so large that it could never be defeated. Indeed, in the end we announced that our enemy was not even a people but a method (The War on Terror) which assured us of a war we could never win. And we've been at war ever since. It's fucking insane. We're gone through the looking glass because a handful of assholes with box-cutters managed to conceptually reconfigure a good chunk world as America's enemy (You're either with us or against us, remember?). What's the point? Well, I think we should have a care about how we constitute new enemies and how many people we lump in with them, even if we feel they deserve it (indeed, perhaps especially if they deserve it). We need to draw upon resources of unity. We need to be able to form coalitions to make changes, so we need to see each other as something more than victims on the right side of history and devils on the wrong side of history. Bitching and moaning and screaming with increasing intensity is only going to lead to more wins for Trump. He's in the mud already. That's where he plays. Fear and anger and sniping are in his wheelhouse. If we cannot be allies when the moment comes because one of us is ideologically impure, then we can only be enemies, and that's bad for both of us. People need to chill, enhance their calm, be grown ups, and accept even the "devils" among us as brothers and sisters with better angels inside them that be reconstituted and redeemed.


Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:22 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
You have lost the claim that there isn't a debate to be had about whether oral contraceptives are abortifacients. You have several links I have provided from peer-reviewed academic journals, one as recent as 2018 which argues the contrary claim (i.e., that they are). Not only is there a debate to be had, it's a debate that is ongoing. And again, I don't really care that much that pill has an abortifacient effect for reasons we have already discussed. I would not stand against someone using birth control on grounds of these effects. This is NOT, however, to say that conservatives are simply wrong in claiming that common oral contraceptives have an abortifacient effect. Moreover, to try to spackle over the concerns of those who do worry about the issue ("See I have a source that makes your issue go away by definition!") on moral grounds is undignified and underhanded. And this drives people who might stand with you in the opposite direction.

"Abortifacient" is a scientific term, relating to a biological function that, as my source states, is "accepted by governmental agencies and all major U.S. medical organizations". None of your sources refute this. Your wiki mentions right at the top that "an abortion is defined as ending an established pregnancy, rather than as destroying a fertilized egg". And this is why the "controversy is not primarily a scientific issue, since knowledge of human reproduction and development has become very refined". The entire debate is reliant on making the definition of abortion about destroying a fertilized egg, even though the article just pointed out that this is not what abortion is. Instead, it's about what certain religious people believe about the threshold of conception, quite apart from the science involved. I should have been more clear. There is no debate regarding the scientific issue of the definition of conception as the establishment of pregnancy. And I'm not really interested in the "linguistic questions" that religious people insist on debating "despite the scientific community being able to describe the physical processes in detail". And I'm also not going to read a 300 page report from someone representing a pro-life group to argue this point. I can only recommend the National Catholic Reporter article (quick and clean) to see that there are no moral grounds here to spackle over.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Well, I think we should have a care about how we constitute new enemies and how many people we lump in with them, even if we feel they deserve it (indeed, perhaps especially if they deserve it).

You know, when I start calling Trump and his supporters "terrorists", maybe I'll take this into account.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
He's in the mud already. That's where he plays. Fear and anger and sniping are in his wheelhouse. If we cannot be allies when the moment comes because one of us is ideologically impure, then we can only be enemies, and that's bad for both of us. People need to chill, enhance their calm, be grown ups, and accept even the "devils" among us as brothers and sisters with better angels inside them that be reconstituted and redeemed.

Right. Trump's a pig. Calling him a pig somehow makes me dirty. Somehow I have no choice but to pay his ransom. He gets to both be a pig and be immune from being called a pig. Classic gaslighting. It reminds me of when Kellyanne Conway, at a press conference outside the White House with reporters whose job it is to report on the White House, when she said "Why is everybody so obsessed with the president of the United States?" You see, it's our fault that the POTUS is an inherently important figure in American life. It's our fault to be concerned about the fact that he's a pig in the most consequential position in the country. It's our fault to point out that this isn't normal, and to quote the piggish things he says and the boorish things he does. Why is everyone so eager to get into the mud? Let's ignore the damage being done to civil discourse, democratic norms and the overtly racist mechanisms with which he solidified his base. Better to stay clean than to hurt the pig's feelings. I have an idea! Let's make fun of liberal snowflakes instead because they cry! Why are you crying, huh? What's the matter, babies?


Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:21 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
"Abortifacient" is a scientific term, relating to a biological function that, as my source states, is "accepted by governmental agencies and all major U.S. medical organizations". None of your sources refute this.


Except the sources the offer contrary definitions of conception... ...and the peer-reviewed journals that claim that oral contraceptive DO have an abortifacient effect.

I can see that you are recalcitrant on this matter. So be it.

Jinnistan wrote:
You know, when I start calling Trump and his supporters "terrorists", maybe I'll take this into account.


You might also take into account that I was not talking to you. I made a specific comment to a specific poster. I am speaking here of a larger pattern which concerns me, true. However, you should not feel implicated unless you have a guilty conscience, which I am sure you don't (if you did, you would no doubt produce an entry on "conscience" showing that you were incapable of guilt, by definition).

The rest of your comment is off-the-rails, so I am passing over it. I was making a point about how we need to constitute people to be better than they are, which you took to be a personal indictment.


Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:56 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 2069 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.