|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Friggin' hypocritical self-righteous misogynists!
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Related (IMHO): "Bill would assure California workers of reproductive freedom>" (SF Chronicle).
And, on the Missouri situation, an AP article from June 12th, via SFGate (an SF Chronicle site): "Missouri lawmakers return for special session on abortion". This is from before the Newsweek article.
quote:
Missouri lawmakers returned to the Capitol on Monday after Republican Gov. Eric Greitens called for a special session aimed at imposing more abortion restrictions and undoing a St. Louis ordinance that bans discrimination over abortion and pregnancies.
Greitens, an abortion opponent, announced last week he was bringing legislators back to work, the second time he's done so in less than a month. At issue now are a federal judge's ruling striking down some state laws on abortion and the St. Louis ordinance, which prohibits discrimination in housing and employment based on "reproductive health decisions."
(Italics mine.) Same basic info as Newsweek, ISTM.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I have read some of the bill in question, the SB5. From the text of the bill the purpose is to put additional limits on abortion, banning most forms of abortion and insisting on reporting of all kinds of abortion. I don't have the knowledge or interest to work out the clauses and laws that are being repealed in the first section. As I am aware that the woman from Missouri posting on this thread is anti-abortion from the Dead Horses threads on these topics, I am afraid I don't trust her judgement in this case.
In addition there is a perception that a number of forms of contraception are regarded as abortifacient*, which will mean that contraception will fall under such a law.
* this is debatable and has been in Dead Horses.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I mean, given that the majority of posts here have been arguing the toss over Eutychus, and close to zero have been spent responding to the one poster who actually is a woman from Missouri, I don't think anyone really gets to take the moral high ground on this one ...
LC did not reframe the discussion. Missouri lawmakers are still trying to infringe upon women's rights and punish them for not being dutiful baby makers. Nothing she, you or Eutychus has said changes this thing which is the cause of the anger.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
[x-post] quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
"Women on Birth Control Could Be Barred From Working If Missouri Lawmakers Get Their Way
Missouri’s Senate is considering legislation that would allow employers and landlords to discriminate against women who use birth control or have had abortions. The bill, which has the support of the state’s governor, Eric Greitens, was approved by the Missouri House Tuesday."
Nope, not just feeling that your's is so much of an improvement.
Mine is an improvement in that the legislation being considered wouldn't actively allow anything claimed above (I'm far from sure you in particular have actually grasped this fact).
It will, indirectly, remove a legal provision in St Louis (which, despite your protestations, is not the same entity as the State of Missouri) explicitly banning such discrimination. SB5 says nothing about women's potential employers or landlords at all, and the only novation (so far as I can see) compared to existing legislation in the rest of Missouri (by your own figures, some 50% of the population) is to make it more difficult to set up new abortion facilities.
(For the avoidance of doubt, again, this is a matter of concern - but despite being the central plank of SB5 as far as I can see, this actual provision is totally absent from the original article - I am puzzled as to why).
It may well be part of a broader strategy to restrict women's rights, but the legislation invoked does not support the claims made and presented as fact by Newsweek.
If that doesn't alarm you, it should.
quote:
There's a House style to adhere to, and there's some click-throughness that probably means your paper goes bust.
OK, so your criteria for acceptability just became clicks and revenue rather than the truth? I didn't realise the current White House business model had gained so much acceptance among the Ship's left-leaning elements, especially given the criticism it (justly) receives from them. Apparently, what's bad about "Lyin' Donnie" is not that he's "Lyin'", it's simply that he's "Donnie".
Your only excuse for falling for this appears to be that you're in the business of writing fiction rather than (supposedly) reporting fact.
quote:
So I'm going back to my original comment that you saw fit to spend 6 posts telling everyone how terrible the reporting was, and only in your 7th, that you actually disagreed with repealing the legislation. Any answer to that?
Yes. Firstly, I did not "spend 6 posts telling everyone how terrible the reporting was" (more distortion).
I spent 5 posts simply asking for a link to the law, and only after people had variously linked to things other than the actual law and I had been accused of not having bothered to search for the actual law myself - when I was the first person to post a link to it on the thread - did I point out the bad form of the article not linking to it in the first place. In my view the reason it didn't is simple and deliberate: it does not support the contents of the article.
Which makes the original piece propaganda, not reporting.
Despite this, several people seemed to think that linking to other articles covering the same issue was equivalent to finding the source text they were allegedly reporting on.
Again, if that doesn't alarm you, it should. quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
The clumsy and artless headline
Clumsy and artless would have been a petty concern. The concern, as several people have admitted, is that it is deliberately misleading.
It is artful, not artless.
It is designed, not to truthfully report the legislation, but to push a particular interpretation of it. And again, the apparent inability of people to tell the difference - including for or indeed especially when it comes to causes they are sympathetic to - is a cause for concvern. quote:
it has pushed a button where you function, triggering this massive 'splainilepsy.
If you like, yes. As I've said several times above, that's how I roll, I don't expect everyone to be like me in that or any other respect, and I'm likely to spot that kind of thing because it's the kind of thing I'm paid to check.
But as I also said, I reserve the right to be me, and I think truth in journalism is one of the great battles of our day. (Well, judging by a lot of comments on here, the battle is lost already, but one can hope).
quote:
But I fear that you are trying to sell hand-sanitizer to the front lines of a shit-flinging contest.
As I said earlier, what concerns me is that the side I tend to sympathise with has to resort to flinging shit - or at the least, support shit-flinging - when there appear better weapons available; like the truth.
[ 26. June 2017, 05:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
In haste:
GK, the AP report is far more accurate than the Newsweek article. Doc Tor need look no further for an example of good journalism. Can neither of you really see a difference?
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
In addition there is a perception that a number of forms of contraception are regarded as abortifacient*, which will mean that contraception will fall under such a law.
I skim-read SB5 and asked myself the same question, but I deem it unlikely in that SB5 refers repeatedly to "abortion facilities" in terms that appear to refer to interventions and bricks-and-mortar premises rather than contraception. I'm prepared to be corrected on that, but hardly anybody seems to be interested in looking at the acutal law...
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Hi Eutychus, I got that reading from reading the actual law, because there are also a lot of reporting requirements within that law.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Eutychus--
ISTM that there's a marked difference in style. AP's style tends to be simple, unemotional, and direct. The Newsweek article (and the Feministing, IIRC) are more expressive. That doesn't *necessarily* have anything to do with basic accuracy.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Hi Eutychus, I got that reading from reading the actual law, because there are also a lot of reporting requirements within that law.
We're on the same page here. I wasn't referring to you. quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Eutychus--
ISTM that there's a marked difference in style. AP's style tends to be simple, unemotional, and direct. The Newsweek article (and the Feministing, IIRC) are more expressive. That doesn't *necessarily* have anything to do with basic accuracy.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) The difference is that the AP article reports the facts, not their interpretation of the facts.
You'll note, for example, that AP says nothing at all about new restrictions on housing, contraception, or employment in the new bill, for the very good reason that they aren't there.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Ohher, mdijon
I'm on holiday and should have stayed on holiday! Apologies, my post was a clumsy attempt to spread a bit of oil on troubled waters.
The AP article confirms that Eutychus and others have been right to criticise the Newsweek article. The differences are a matter of substance, not style.
Lamb Chopped's personal position on abortion has nothing to do with her view, confirmed by AP, that the St Louis provision was largely symbolic.
And with that, I'm back on holiday!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Eutychus--
As I highlighted in the AP quote, work and housing rights *are* at issue. AIUI, they had been at issue; then there was a law to prevent discrimination on that basis; and now there's a move to repeal the anti-discrimination law.
So, while the proposed law may not say "hey, looky here, everybody plague prospective employees and tenants, of the female persuasion, with deeply rude questions about how they manage their bodies", it's making that discrimination legal again.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
It's not clear that this is what is happening in SB5, because it comes under a section that says repeal section x, y and z of statute 999. And you have to know or check another whole raft of bills to find out that bit.
I found this out the hard way reading canonical legislation when formally drafting a new team instrument.
[ 26. June 2017, 07:16: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Eutychus--
As I highlighted in the AP quote, work and housing rights *are* at issue. AIUI, they had been at issue; then there was a law to prevent discrimination on that basis; and now there's a move to repeal the anti-discrimination law.
Repealing a local law purportedly aimed at preventing existing discrimination is not the same as enshrining new powers to discriminate in law applicable statewide, which is what the Newsweek article gives you to believe (and indeed appears to be what you believe).
The new bill makes absolutely no change to legal provisions affecting housing and employment in Missouri, so the Newsweek headline and article are deliberately misleading in this respect.
It does, indirectly, make a change to the rights of St Louis residents because it removes existing anti-discrimination provisions applying in St Louis.
However, as Barnabas62 and, more unpopularly, Lamb Chopped have pointed out, so far there has been no evidence whatsoever adduced here that these provisions were required to overturn actual discrimination, rather than to make a symbolic point.
I say "more unpopularly" because rather than challenge the substance of Lamb Chopped's assertions as a Missouri woman and therefore with pretty good qualifications to comment in my view, her response is dismissed as wrong purely on the grounds of her being anti-abortion.
This is the kind of partisan thinking that has Ricardus and I all worked up. Y'all are assuming your opponent must be wrong in every respect, simply because she's on the other side of a related debate, and as far as I can see you'll continue to do so because it supports your narrative - irrespective of what the facts may be.
Does that detachment from reality really not bother you?
Can somebody explain to me how it is substantially any different from the following?
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough (in Purgatory):
Fact does not slow him ["Lyin' Don", sic] down in the slightest, and you can hardly get a better example of his fantabulization. (...) Everyone collaborated on the lie because it fed their prejudices.
[ 26. June 2017, 07:27: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Eutychus--
As I highlighted in the AP quote, work and housing rights *are* at issue. AIUI, they had been at issue...
See, here's where you're going wrong. They had not been at issue. Other laws, particularly of the privacy type, had been barring that kind of discrimination for years.
So why the new and later repealed law, if those rights were already covered?
Political grandstanding, that's what. Soon to be matched by the other side in the repeal.
The net effect when it comes to landlords, employers, etc is to put us right back where we were before-- which is to say, protected by privacy laws.
Really. We're not complete barbarians. Only partial ones.
And Moo has the right idea about Newsweek.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you wish to harvest from my field of fucks, I'm sorry, but they've all been sent special delivery to the good women of the State of Missouri.
On the evidence of your posts here, most of your fucks have been spent on Eutychus.
It was the weekend, I had a stick, and the ants' nest already looked stirred up. I mean, what's the worst that could happen?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I mean, what's the worst that could happen?
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
concvern
That's uncomfortably close to covfefe for my own liking.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Eutychus--
As I highlighted in the AP quote, work and housing rights *are* at issue. AIUI, they had been at issue...
See, here's where you're going wrong. They had not been at issue. Other laws, particularly of the privacy type, had been barring that kind of discrimination for years.
So why the new and later repealed law, if those rights were already covered?
Political grandstanding, that's what. Soon to be matched by the other side in the repeal.
The net effect when it comes to landlords, employers, etc is to put us right back where we were before-- which is to say, protected by privacy laws.
Really. We're not complete barbarians. Only partial ones.
And Moo has the right idea about Newsweek.
Because, of course, no-one can find this information out about anyone except by asking them at interview, because Facebook doesn't exist, no-one knows anything about anyone else's business, no-one ever talks to their friends about this sort of thing, and people desperate for work never answer interview questions that shouldn't be asked but are asked anyway.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
And anti-discrimination laws can't stop that, unfortunately.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
ISTM that there's a marked difference in style. AP's style tends to be simple, unemotional, and direct. The Newsweek article (and the Feministing, IIRC) are more expressive.
I want my news reports to be simple, unemotional, and direct. Given accurate information, I can generate my own appropriate emotions.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And anti-discrimination laws can't stop that, unfortunately.
If I reject your application because I do not like goths, no one will know if I do not say it out loud. However, if I establish a pattern of rejecting goths however qualified, anti-discrimination laws can be applied. They cannot end discrimination entirely, but they can help.
Their existence sends a message. Just as the lack thereof sends one. As a lawyer, you should know that.
In the presence discrimination, laws that actively prohibit discrimination are necessary.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Proving that sort of discrimination is highly problematic. AS a lawyer, I do indeed know that! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Proving that sort of discrimination is highly problematic. AS a lawyer, I do indeed know that!
And without anti-discrimination laws, it makes things worse.
And shennigans like the law under discussion send the message as to which side "interpretation" will fall.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Oh, agreed. This is the tragedy of this thread - that we're all shooting at our own side.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
So, who else has heard of wikitribune?
It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
First I've heard of it. I wonder if, like the Society of Professional Journalists, they will develop a Code of Ethics?
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
... I mean, given that the majority of posts here have been arguing the toss over Eutychus, and close to zero have been spent responding to the one poster who actually is a woman from Missouri, I don't think anyone really gets to take the moral high ground on this one ...
I'm ignoring Lamb Chopped's contribution because she's been consistent in her posts on anti-discrimination legislation. She's repeatedly stated she's prepared to accept being personally discriminated against on certain grounds so that she can discriminate against others on other grounds.
And following up on what RuthW said: support your local newspaper. Heck, support two.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And following up on what RuthW said: support your local newspaper. Heck, support two.
Local, national and world.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I'm ignoring Lamb Chopped's contribution because she's been consistent in her posts on anti-discrimination legislation.
Back from hols! The temptation was too great. Well, ignore if you must. But AP confirms her view about the largely symbolic nature of the St Louis provision. So she was right on that point wasn't she? And it's a pretty important point, isn't it?
I suppose it may be possible to argue that the defence Lamb Chopped claims to exist in the pre-existing privacy laws doesn't exist. But it's pretty hard to believe that in view of the AP statement that the St Louis provision was largely symbolic. Which makes its repeal largely symbolic. Which is one of the reasons, maybe the major one, which make the Newsweek article largely flawed.
None of which detracts from my suspicion that the intentions of the MO legislators are both malevolent and discriminatory. But the AP article provides more justification for my suspicion than the Newsweek article, which as Moo observed gives justification for suspicion about Newsweek articles.
BTW I'm not suspicious of Lamb Chopped either. As a DH and Purg Host I get to read all her stuff. I don't agree with all the opinions she expresses. That doesn't make her an untrustworthy source on matters of fact. Why should it?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I'm ignoring Lamb Chopped's contribution because she's been consistent in her posts on anti-discrimination legislation.
Back from hols! The temptation was too great. Well, ignore if you must. But AP confirms her view about the largely symbolic nature of the St Louis provision. So she was right on that point wasn't she? And it's a pretty important point, isn't it?
Because symbolism doesn't matter? In a state with ONE place to get an abortion? A state which funds pregnancy "resource" centres that lie about the health effects of abortion? A state whose governor is actively trying to legislate abortion out of existence?
SB 5 does more than "symbolically" roll back protections. It includes provisions to make running a clinic which provides abortions more difficult.
This is more than symbolism, this is an attack.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I provided you with facts concerning the law. I did not address the abortion location issue at all. My facts turned out to be correct. Why are you so upset with me?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I provided you with facts concerning the law. I did not address the abortion location issue at all. My facts turned out to be correct. Why are you so upset with me?
I'm not upset with you. I merely addressed why not responding to you was not the affront that Ricardus thinks it was.
Though you did say
quote:
Duh we do stupid legal tricks. Getting your panties in a twist over our legal grandstanding is a waste of time. Go for the real problems that need real outrage.
which is dismissive of what some of us think are real problems with Missouri's current stance on women's reproductive rights.
I think this bill by Missouri contains direct threat and that the symbolic part of it is a real threat. A fact without context loses significance. I gave context in my previous post.
As to your state's poor treatment of black people, I have plenty of outrage to spare for that as well. No need to apportion it.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
You could easily take the abortion location issue to be outrage-worthy. Getting het up because someone (several someones on both sides) have misused the legislative system for grandstanding purposes, not so much. If nothing else, think of the time wasted! The confusion added to the issue in the public mind! (witness Newsweek) I'm rather pissed at them (both sides) on account of this abuse of the legal system. There are far more useful things they could be doing, as the whole world knows after Ferguson.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Eutychus--
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Disclosure: writing appropriate headlines for press releases is something I get paid to do.
Um, if you'd led with this, you might have saved yourself a lot of trouble.
And...are the standards for press release headlines the same as for magazine headlines? They serve different purposes.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
@ lilBuddha
I argued upthread that symbolism does matter. It signals intentions and tone. And the strengthened anti-abortion provisions of SB5 are not symbolic. It is the repeal of the St Louis provision which is largely symbolic, as was the provision itself. And it is the headline and the substance of the Newsweek article which misrepresents that aspect of SB5. Unlike the AP article.
What's to stop Newsweek publishing a correction and then going for the jugular on the anti-abortion provisions? I reckon they could do that and they ought to do that. They got it wrong.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
She's repeatedly stated she's prepared to accept being personally discriminated against on certain grounds so that she can discriminate against others on other grounds.
I've read those posts too and I didn't agree with them and thought they were daft. But not half as daft as that silly caricature you've just scribbled of her views.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What's to stop Newsweek publishing a correction and then going for the jugular on the anti-abortion provisions? I reckon they could do that and they ought to do that. They got it wrong.
Once you've crossed into the "ethic" of clickbait headlines and maximising revenue being the determining factors, I don't think "getting it wrong" counts for much.
I think you can forget piffling things like "corrections" unless the money you are likely to pay out on a lawsuit exceeds your advertising revenue.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Sure, but as I understand it, Newsweek was previously a respected publication. Appreciating all bottom line arguments is one thing, looking after your long term reputation is another. They could decide to reverse the downhill trend. RooK's post suggests there might actually be a decent market out there for ethical journalism.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sure, but as I understand it, Newsweek was previously a respected publication. Appreciating all bottom line arguments is one thing, looking after your long term reputation is another. They could decide to reverse the downhill trend. RooK's post suggests there might actually be a decent market out there for ethical journalism.
On the other hand, protecting a publication's long-term reputation becomes a quixotic endeavor when the publication's going belly-up for lack of revenue.
When the general readership (and those trying to sell them products) is increasingly (A) too busy scrabbling to survive to read; (B) too poorly-educated to grasp what little they do read; (C) far more interested in the latest Kardashian scandal-drama than in what their government is/isn't doing, the Fourth Estate's real job, however ethically performed, gets pushed right off the table.
Let's see how many folks sign up for the Wikimedia project.
[ 27. June 2017, 14:57: Message edited by: Ohher ]
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
She's repeatedly stated she's prepared to accept being personally discriminated against on certain grounds so that she can discriminate against others on other grounds.
I've read those posts too and I didn't agree with them and thought they were daft. But not half as daft as that silly caricature you've just scribbled of her views.
I don't mind anyone thinking me daft, but I do appreciate your recognizing this as a silly caricature. I can't recall ever stating on the Ship anywhere that I intended to discriminate against anybody on any grounds. Citation, Soror Magna?
The overriding theme of my posts on that thread was that I judged it better to put up with minor discrimination (even and especially against myself) than to give the state power to waltz in and destroy a family's livelihood over a cake, however wrongheaded they might be.
The key words there were "minor" (no one dies for lack of a wedding cake--we're not talking medical care or jobs) and "livelihood" (since family businesses are being shut down for a religious decision that others disagree with. I judge the relative amount of harm in such cases to favor leaving the discriminator alone. And I backed up my reasoning by pointing to the real though minor harm my family suffers at the hand of my racist neighbors. We could retaliate legally, and might even win. But they'd probably lose their retirement $ and possibly their home just defending the case, win or lose. The punishment would be wildly incommensurate. And that's just wrong.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sure, but as I understand it, Newsweek was previously a respected publication. Appreciating all bottom line arguments is one thing, looking after your long term reputation is another. They could decide to reverse the downhill trend. RooK's post suggests there might actually be a decent market out there for ethical journalism.
On the other hand, protecting a publication's long-term reputation becomes a quixotic endeavor when the publication's going belly-up for lack of revenue.
When the general readership (and those trying to sell them products) is increasingly (A) too busy scrabbling to survive to read; (B) too poorly-educated to grasp what little they do read; (C) far more interested in the latest Kardashian scandal-drama than in what their government is/isn't doing, the Fourth Estate's real job, however ethically performed, gets pushed right off the table.
Let's see how many folks sign up for the Wikimedia project.
Fair enough. I may well be whistling in the increasing dark. I hope not, for all sorts of reason. The main one is that the Fourth Estate's real job is pretty vital in an increasingly 'spinny' political world. If it becomes increasingly 'spinny', we all lose.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The key words there were "minor"
It is not minor. The laws exist because of the pervasive nature of allowing discrimination in too many "minor" situations.
THis has been covered throughly in DH, but if you choose to serve the public, you do so by those rules and not your own.
BTW, what you choose to endure re racism does not translate to what everyone else should endure.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm not intending to sidetrack this thread. I do think that you place far too great an emphasis on symbolism (yes, I know it has its place) vs actual real-life here and now demonstrable harm on the ground. And the self-righteousness is stinging.
[ 27. June 2017, 15:53: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
On the other hand, protecting a publication's long-term reputation becomes a quixotic endeavor when the publication's going belly-up for lack of revenue.
Unfortunate, but true.
quote:
When the general readership (and those trying to sell them products) is increasingly (A) too busy scrabbling to survive to read;
This is not true. It is increasingly easy to find news and in digest form. One only needs to sort the wheat from the chaff initially.
quote:
(B) too poorly-educated to grasp what little they do read;
In part, by choice. Again, the information is more readily available. So too, is the misinformation.
quote:
(C) far more interested in the latest Kardashian scandal-drama than in what their government is/isn't doing, the Fourth Estate's real job, however ethically performed, gets pushed right off the table.
Complete and ridiculously true.
quote:
Let's see how many folks sign up for the Wikimedia project.
There is a market for information that is as objective as possible. Unfortunately, it is small and will not be the source of the general public.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
When the general readership (and those trying to sell them products) is increasingly (A) too busy scrabbling to survive to read;
This is not true. It is increasingly easy to find news and in digest form. One only needs to sort the wheat from the chaff initially.
We may move in different circles, and I don't know if the eye-corner you occupy is in the UK or the US. In the US, where I live, many people of my acquaintance work at low-wage jobs and therefore have 2 or 3 of these in efforts to keep the bills paid. One guy I know is a teller at a bank 37.5 hours a week, a check-out clerk at a supermarket another 20 hours a week, and drives a 12-hour shift Sunday nights for a local cab company, getting off in time to shower, change, and eat before reporting to his bank job. He cannot make the rent on his run-of-the-mill apartment on his bank job. He commutes to his job sites by bike to save car expenses. He has neither the leisure or energy to pay attention to news in any format. While his situation is a tad extreme, I know hardly anyone who works fewer than 60 hours a week, even if they're salaried and theoretically working 40; they're afraid of getting canned if they "produce less."
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
(B) too poorly-educated to grasp what little they do read;
In part, by choice. Again, the information is more readily available. So too, is the misinformation.
I wonder which part you believe is "by choice?" Most ordinary people where I live use public schools, which are busy getting starved of funds by all these charter, private, home-school "options" which the better-off, empowered by Republicans, are busy shunting their kids off to. The school district assigns your kids to the neighborhood school, and if the neighborhood isn't well-off, the school's usually in pretty dire straits too. Kids get very little choice about their schooling, and it isn't easily made up for later. I teach freshman comp at a community college, and in any given semester, about 20% of my students are functionally illiterate, another 20% struggle for comprehension, perhaps 5% read fluently, and I deliberately choose simple, straightforward, reading matter in hope of reaching more than 10% of the class. Students often claim they have never, before taking my class, read an entire book before. (If they have, it's Harry Potter or the Twilight series, and then with the aid of the resulting movies.)
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Let's see how many folks sign up for the Wikimedia project.
There is a market for information that is as objective as possible. Unfortunately, it is small and will not be the source of the general public.
And THIS is exactly the problem: the general public’s access to reliable information is increasingly restricted. On one side, access is restricted by undereducation. You can’t make smart choices about wheat and chaff when you haven’t been trained to distinguish one from another (especially if you have little vocab and poor reading skills). You’re not likely to TRY making smart choices when many politicians and “news sources” are drumming it into the public mind that the “lamestream media” are a pack of coastal elitists / liberal liars / politically correct commie pinko radicals, etc., and Is Not For The Likes Of You.
On another hand, access is restricted by cost. The cost of reliable media sources competes, for many, with necessities. When that money comes on top of challenging mental work, after you’re already worn out from your 12-14-hour 7-day-a-week work schedule, guess what happens?
On a third hand, now access is restricted by sheer confusion over “fake news.” Most people I encounter, without the skills or sense or know-how to evaluate competing / conflicting narratives, simply give up and tune out. They claim all politicians are crooks and liars, and ignore / grudgingly put up with whatever government does, assuming there’s nothing which can be done about it; they claim “the media” is useless (since for these folks, that’s literally true), and discount whatever they happen, however accidentally, to see, hear, and/or read.
Except for the sports scores, of course.
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The key words there were "minor" (no one dies for lack of a wedding cake--we're not talking medical care or jobs)
I don't think that is the right criterion. Nobody dies for lack of being able to drink at the same water fountain as white people. Nobody dies from having a cross burned on their lawn. Nobody dies from being a second-class citizen. That's not a very useful,or even moral, criterion when discussing systematic oppression or discrimination.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I've read those posts too and I didn't agree with them and thought they were daft. But not half as daft as that silly caricature you've just scribbled of her views.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't mind anyone thinking me daft, but I do appreciate your recognizing this as a silly caricature. I can't recall ever stating on the Ship anywhere that I intended to discriminate against anybody on any grounds.
This is hell, so I guess I could have said I thought you were daft if I needed to, but it was only those views I took aim at.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The key words there were "minor" (no one dies for lack of a wedding cake--we're not talking medical care or jobs)
I don't think that is the right criterion. Nobody dies for lack of being able to drink at the same water fountain as white people. Nobody dies from having a cross burned on their lawn. Nobody dies from being a second-class citizen. That's not a very useful,or even moral, criterion when discussing systematic oppression or discrimination.
It also fails the "minor" test when people face repeated incidents, of varied kinds, every single day of their lives, from childhood on up, which question, diminish, and discount their very being. We've known since Brown v Board of Education the damage this constant, repetitive undercutting does to the developing human.
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
]We may move in different circles, and I don't know if the eye-corner you occupy is in the UK or the US. In the US, where I live, many people of my acquaintance work at low-wage jobs and therefore have 2 or 3 of these in efforts to keep the bills paid.
I am not discounting anything you have said. From what I have seen and read, Americans do work more hours on average than much of the rest of the first world.
However, most do have a telly and do have smartphones. Whist keeping up with current events is not as relaxing as watching the actions of the famous, but irrelevant, it isn't difficult to find out what is going on in the world. And considering how that affects one's wages, health, etc., there is little excuse to not try.
Education and learning are not the exclusive purview of the economically comfortable. Yes, if one has to make a greater effort to survive, going beyond that is wearying and more difficult.
This is a reason, but it is not an excuse unless one is content always being unnecessarily poor.
Being poor makes everything more difficult and it is not a fair thing. But it will never get better if an effort is not made. The rich certainly are not going to change the system.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
So, who else has heard of wikitribune?
Looks interesting! Thanks, Rook.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
