Ship of Fools: Friggin' hypocritical self-righteous misogynists!

Thread: Friggin' hypocritical self-righteous misogynists! Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005694

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Grrrrrrrr.

"Women on Birth Control Could Be Barred From Working If Missouri Lawmakers Get Their Way" (Newsweek)-- and barred from housing, too.

If they're going to set up a morality clause, then it should also apply to acts politicians are often known for: adultery, statutory rape, sexual assault, driving under the influence, corruption...

Or, to make it simpler: "Are you now, or were you ever, a politician? No respectable person will employ you or rent to you. Go away."

Double grrrrrrrrr.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Wow. Just wow.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

This is what Hobby Lobby was all about. Don't expect this to be struck down by the courts. The Republican Party hates women. Full stop.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I really hope that some Missouri male legislator's mistress will pipe up and publicly say "You know, if *we* hadn't been using birth control, we'd probably have a gaggle of kids to explain to your wife--and for you to support; you might want to rethink that bill, and stop being an ass".

Or, of course, the women of Missouri could go all "Lysistrata" (Wikipedia). (NOTE: Has drawing that's slightly NSFW.)

quote:
Lysistrata (/laɪˈsɪstrətə/ or /ˌlɪsəˈstrɑːtə/; Attic Greek: Λυσιστράτη, "Army Disbander") is a comedy by Aristophanes. Originally performed in classical Athens in 411 BCE, it is a comic account of a woman's extraordinary mission to end the Peloponnesian War by denying all the men of the land any sex, which was the only thing they truly and deeply desired. Lysistrata persuades the women of Greece to withhold sexual privileges from their husbands and lovers as a means of forcing the men to negotiate peace—a strategy, however, that inflames the battle between the sexes. The play is notable for being an early exposé of sexual relations in a male-dominated society.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Motherfuckers, I can't even

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Republican Party hates women.

I have a theory about that.

Maybe it's not so much about the Republican Party necessarily having a detailed agenda of awfulness, but rather that the only necessary driving element is the grasping for power. The current modality that it has evolved to stoke its grasping for power is to leverage fear and hate. This is effective because not only are most people susceptible to fear and/or hate, but it also pulls for fringe elements that normally would not be accessible to political parties with, you know, objective thought.

So, not quite that the Republican Party hates women, but rather that it empowers people that hate women. And people that fear non-whites. And people that fear non-cis. And people that hate thinking.

The Dumbocratic party has totally different but similar problems - but they're just annoying, not horrifying.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

So far as I can tell, this is the bill.

For the sake of clarity, can someone explain to me, quoting the bill, how it supports the Newsweek headline?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

It's like they use the illusion of giving freedom of conscience so they can say they're not forcing their morality on people; they're just granting employers, landlords, etc., the ability to do so.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I can see that in the bill as regards "abortion facilities" but not contraception, and I cannot see anything about employer-employee relationships or tenant-landlord relationships other than in respect of abortion facilities and/or provision.

What have I missed?

[ 24. June 2017, 08:34: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So far as I can tell, this is the bill.

For the sake of clarity, can someone explain to me, quoting the bill, how it supports the Newsweek headline?

It overturns an existing ordinance which prohibits such discrimination. It doesn't introduce the right itself.

http://feministing.com/2017/06/21/missouri-votes-to-let-employers-fire-people-who-use-birth-control/

This is the ordinance it overturns:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/bill-protecting-women-against-discrimination-for-having-an-abortion-pass es/article_ebbfb676-ef5c-560a-ba0c-3b9a3a9672a1.html

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

That's what Feministing says, yes. But someone is going to have to explain to me how SB5 pertains to reproductive health, i.e. contraception, and not abortion.

Specifically, I can't see how it can

quote:
sanction employment and housing discrimination against people who use birth control

Can anyone link to an actual piece of legislation instead of articles about it?

[ 24. June 2017, 09:17: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I'm working on kicking back and calming down. But the following might be useful:

--Search on "news missouri bill women contraception rent june 2017" at DuckDuckGo. A variety of hits, including some in Missouri.

--HuffPost article.

--American Civil Liberties Union (aclu.org) and the National Organization for Women (now.org) don't seem to have anything yet.

I'm now going back to watching "The Great British Baking Show". Night! [Smile]

PS Thanks for taking this seriously.
[Overused]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

...so in America, your employer and your landlord both have the right to examine your medical records?

Good grief.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I'm trying to take this seriously, but my ability to do so is being hampered by nobody, so far, managing to point to the actual legislation that suggests anything other than action against abortion clinics and providers.

For the fourth time of asking.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

It doesn't. It overturns a bill which forbids discrimination on grounds of reproductuve choices, thereby effectively re-enabling it.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It doesn't. It overturns a bill which forbids discrimination on grounds of reproductuve choices, thereby effectively re-enabling it.

Can you a) supply a link to the original bill b) explain how the new one allows discrimination on grounds of reproductive choices?

I can see that the new one allows discrimination against abortion providers, but not that it allows discrimination based on reproductive choices, specifically, use of birth control as a criteria for employment and/or accommodation (of individuals rather than abortion facilities).

[ 24. June 2017, 11:25: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Should add - I presume it's one of the previous ordinances explicitly listed as repealed at the head of the bill. Euty may be misunderstanding and thinking it's being claimed that the main body of the bill is what's being referred to. That's not my understanding.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Eutychus: Here you go.

I have not read it myself, as I am not a lawyer and am perfectly willing to accept that the links Golden Key posted are reporting this accurately. However, typing a Google search for 'st louis reproductive health legislation' took less than a minute. You should try it yourself sometime.

The bill repealing the original legislation has a link to the original legislation. In anticipation of your next question.

[ 24. June 2017, 11:26: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It doesn't. It overturns a bill which forbids discrimination on grounds of reproductuve choices, thereby effectively re-enabling it.
Can you a) supply a link to the original bill b) explain how the new one allows discrimination on grounds of reproductive choices?

I can see that the new one allows discrimination against abortion providers, but not that it allows discrimination based on reproductive choices.

I'll find a link later because Ivm making lunch - I did earlier link to an article about the St Louis Bill. The point is not that the Bill explicitly enables discrimination, it's that it overturns the Bill forbidding it.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Eutychus:

quote:
I'm trying to take this seriously...

You're not coming across as someone who's trying to take it seriously. You're coming across as someone who doesn't see why being forced to provide information to employers and landlords about your use of contraception/abortion might be a problem.

In the UK, access to medical records is strictly controlled. Employers are allowed to ask you to prove that you are medically fit to do your job (usually by having a check-up with an independent doctor), but that does not entail a right to micromanage your reproductive health. Landlords are only allowed access to information about whether you can pay your rent.

Might I suggest that the existence of the original bill (now repealed) shows that discrimination on the grounds of reproductive decisions *was* a problem in the state of Missouri? And now the legal barriers to it becoming a problem again have been removed.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

[x-post]

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Eutychus: Here you go.

I have not read it myself, as I am not a lawyer and am perfectly willing to accept that the links Golden Key posted are reporting this accurately. However, typing a Google search for 'st louis reproductive health legislation' took less than a minute. You should try it yourself sometime.

I think it's reasonable to expect the people making the claim to substantiate it.

I supplied the link to SB5 and if I hadn't bothered to ask, people would still no doubt be ranting about this based on second-hand reporting. Not even Newsweek can be bothered to link to the actual legislation in question. That's hardly good journalism.

GK's claim, partly citing Newsweek, was "Women on Birth Control Could Be Barred From Working If Missouri Lawmakers Get Their Way... and barred from housing, too."

The city ordinance you link to does indeed explicitly provide against discrimination on the grounds of reproductive health.

However, so far as I can see, while SB5 may repeal that ordinance, it does not positively enable discrimination on the grounds of reproductive health (in other words, the situation outside St Louis remains unchanged in this specific respect).

Again, so far as I can see, that is the clear implication of the OP and just about every secondary source that's running with this story, but unless someone can show me how SB5 positively enables such discrimination it is not an accurate portrayal of the facts, something that really doesn't endear me to the cause.

[ 24. June 2017, 11:40: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

You really don't get it, do you.

It enables discrimination by removing the legal barriers to it. That's all that is necessary, in a culture where discrimination happens (ie everywhere). I'm sure my former employer would have LOVED to know whether I was on the pill. I don't think it's any of their business whether I was or not, and the law where I live agrees with me.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
You really don't get it, do you.

It enables discrimination by removing the legal barriers to it. That's all that is necessary, in a culture where discrimination happens (ie everywhere).

I get that - in those terms.

I would have been far more supportive and outraged if the new legislation had been presented thus by the OP and related articles: as removing the barriers to existing practice rather than as introducing new, more discriminatory measures. It reads like the latter, and is what a casual reader here would have assumed had I not sought clarification.

The facts are bad enough. What's to be gained by misrepresenting them?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

[Disappointed]

"Your outrage over this issue would be understandable if you'd only formatted properly and added footnotes. As you did not, I shall view you with haughty disdain"
Though knee-jerk reaction is an occurance down here, you spent more effort whinging about it than it would have taken to find the source material yourself.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[x-post]

However, so far as I can see, while SB5 may repeal that ordinance, it does not positively enable discrimination on the grounds of reproductive health (in other words, the situation outside St Louis remains unchanged in this specific respect).

As a US woman in my 70s (and with a long and various work history), allow me to explain.

Back in the Bad Old Pre-Discrimination Days, employers not explicitly barred from doing so were perfectly free to ask prospective female employees whether they were married, engaged, or single; whether they had, or planned to have, children; what arrangements had been made for the care of extant children, and on and on.

Employers were free to deny employment to said prospects based NOT ONLY on the answers provided, but also on the interviewer's beliefs / assumptions about prospects' truthfulness in responding. I have been asked all of the above questions. No law explicitly stated that employers COULD ask them; they simply did so when not expressly forbidden to.

It's also true that employers asked male prospects about their marital status, but I have yet to meet a man of my generation who has ever been quizzed about his child-care arrangements.

Trust me: the notion that women between 15 and 50 are basically breeding stock who will, on the flimsiest of whims, upend your company's recruitment and training budget was, and probably remains, widespread.

[ 24. June 2017, 14:17: Message edited by: Ohher ]

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

Oops: that should be "Pre-NONdiscrimination Days."

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Eutychus, why has it not occurred to you to consider why the non-discrimination laws were passed in the first place?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It's not that they're anti woman. They are against women having sex. This is the only explanation that covers everything. Our sexuality is to be controlled and managed and exploited by men, only. We don't get any control.
If we have sex, we deserve to get a disease or become pregnant, ideally both. Naturally there shall be no health care for the pregnancy, and delivery in a hospital costs north of $15,000. No, of course you don't get birth control or an abortion, you slut. After that you get to raise the child yourself (the father had nothing to do with conception, you know).

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Sorry, I'm with Eutychus here.

Fake news has become as much a problem for the left as the right - and especially the well-educated, voting left. BBC source. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask people to consider the sources of what they're linking to.

And I say this not to minimise the issues involved, but precisely because the issues are important. If, as progressives, we build our outrage on shaky foundations, it's much easier for conservatives to ignore us.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

[x-post with Ricardus]

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Once again you manage to attribute to me things I never said.

quote:
"Your outrage over this issue would be understandable if you'd only formatted properly and added footnotes.

I can quite understand anybody's outrage and women's all the more, and have never said anything to the contrary.

What I did say was that I personally would have been more outraged if I had been confronted with the facts of the matter than with "Women on Birth Control Could Be Barred From Working If Missouri Lawmakers Get Their Way" which is far more clickbaity than it is truthful (and yes, this tendency to make headlines as clickbaity as possible sometimes up to and including making them say the exact opposite of what the related article says pisses me off, as it feeds into the whole "fake news" thing).

You know perfectly well that my challenge was not about footnotes or formatting but about substance, and I resent you misrepresenting my challenge as regards the latter as a petty criticism of style.

Substance here means checking the facts of the law against the media claims. Or are we only supposed to do that for Fox, Trump, et al?

quote:
you spent more effort whinging about it than it would have taken to find the source material yourself.

First off, if you scroll up you'll find that I did find the source material (the bill referred to in the OP) myself. It wasn't linked in the article and that's shoddy journalism right there.

Besides, if the complaint had been about an issue you opposed, the first thing you would have done is complain about the lack of a link to the source, and the second thing you would have done is complain that the article quoted did not accurately reflect what the source said: in other words, exactly what I just did. Why do you not apply this principle equitably?

What the source material tells me is that notwithstanding the discriminatory and reprehensible treatment of women in MO the headline in the OP is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. As such, I think it's unhelpful.

If y'all think it's OK to have news outlets distort the actual reasons for your outrage and take the view that "it's close enough to the truth", well fine for you, but it's not how I roll.

As I said, removing a legal protection combating the discriminatory status quo is quite enough to be outraged about. That doesn't justify dressing up said removal as a legal measure that actively exacerbates the status quo. That is simply not true for Missouri as a whole, as I understand it.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Ricardus:

quote:
Fake news has become as much a problem for the left as the right...

This isn't fake news. News that has been presented in the worst possible light I will grant you. News that has been completely made up, no. There really was legislation preventing discrimination on these grounds, and it really has been repealed.

There is a difference between spin and fake news, and saying 'tu quoque' is not going to make it go away.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

For the hard of understanding, here is an actual example of fake news: Pizzagate

[ 24. June 2017, 17:37: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Ricardus:
quote:
Fake news has become as much a problem for the left as the right...
This isn't fake news. News that has been presented in the worst possible light I will grant you. News that has been completely made up, no. There really was legislation preventing discrimination on these grounds, and it really has been repealed.

I agree with your analysis. I think your analysis is correct because it corresponds to the digging that Eutychus has done. Consequently I would say that Eutychus' contribution to this thread has been helpful, rather than something to get outraged over.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

That's nice. You go on thinking that if it makes you happy.

You don't get to tell me or any of the other women who have personal experience of this type of discrimination how we should feel.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

What Ricardus and I are arguing is that the misrepresentation of the facts in the OP does a disservice to the cause of women discriminated against in Missouri.

Nobody's told you how you should feel. That is further misrepresentation.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Ricardus said:

quote:
Consequently I would say that Eutychus' contribution to this thread has been helpful, rather than something to get outraged over.

This certainly sounds like an instruction to me.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Okay, here's a Missouri women with experience of shitty job discrimination (yes: it was medical).

No, they are NOT allowed to ask you shitty questions about your contraception etc. That is barred under law and remains barred under law. That is, under other, pre-existing laws, which have not been repealed and remain in force. The removal of an anti-discrimination measure does not miraculously enable employers, landlords, etc. to ask you nosy questions that are barred under various privacy measures.

Now if you are fool enough to volunteer information on these subjects to a jackass of an employer or landlord, AND they act according to such nature, perhaps (I say perhaps; I rather doubt it) they would legally be allowed to discriminate. I'm fairly sure there are other pre-existing laws in place which would allow you to bring suit even in that case, though. The St. Louis measure appears to me to have been a piece of political grandstanding--a largely or totally unnecessary ordinance created mainly as a way of highlighting political issues.

Before you all start jumping down my throat for the word "unnecessary," I mean in the sense that protective laws are already in place, and a new one is not going to add anything.

Note: I am not a lawyer, and I defer to any such who has knowledge of applicable Missouri and federal law.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

"Back to the Bad Old Days - for Women
Anyway".

Anyway ... I think that's how I might have headed the article, certainly for UK consumption.

Repealing or removing the teeth from existing progressive legislation is part of the conservative toolbag. Saves them having to say what they are really up to. I've become a bit paranoid with that approach, which doesn't mean that they aren't out to get somebody.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Ricardus said:
quote:
Consequently I would say that Eutychus' contribution to this thread has been helpful, rather than something to get outraged over.
This certainly sounds like an instruction to me.

Then you can't parse any more than lilBuddha.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"Back to the Bad Old Days - for Women
Anyway"

It's not "back" to anything for anywhere in Missouri outside St Louis as regards reproductive health. It just isn't.

If there's an issue, it's that of making it more difficult for abortion facilities to be set up state-wide. This is clearly the thrust of the bill before the Senate, but you could be excused for not realising that if you hadn't read the bill (as opposed to the coverage of it).

quote:
Repealing or removing the teeth from existing progressive legislation is part of the conservative toolbag. Saves them having to say what they are really up to.

Yes, and as Lamb Chopped said

quote:
The St. Louis measure appears to me to have been a piece of political grandstanding--a largely or totally unnecessary ordinance created mainly as a way of highlighting political issues.

[ 24. June 2017, 19:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
.... The St. Louis measure appears to me to have been a piece of political grandstanding--a largely or totally unnecessary ordinance created mainly as a way of highlighting political issues.
...

And killing an "unnecessary" ordinance sure looks like grandstanding as well. Grandstanding that says to women, "don't take your rights and freedoms for granted."

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Ricardus said:
quote:
Consequently I would say that Eutychus' contribution to this thread has been helpful, rather than something to get outraged over.
This certainly sounds like an instruction to me.

I would suggest that if you are going to put the worst possible spin on things said by posters who agree with you on the discrimination issue already, then you are probably not going to achieve very much that is helpful.

I accept that my post can be read that way, if you squint. But seriously, if I take offence at a poster for reasons that are stupid, is everyone else not allowed to tell me those reasons are stupid just because no-one has the right to tell me what to feel?

I have no interest in your feelings. I am basically Mr Sociopath with regard to your feelings. But outrage isn't a feeling, it's a moral judgement. If I think that moral judgement is unjustified, I will say so.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But outrage isn't a feeling, it's a moral judgement. If I think that moral judgement is unjustified, I will say so.

You're mistaken. Outrage is most certainly a feeling, usually justified by someone's rights or equality getting trod on.

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It's not that they're anti woman. They are against women having sex. This is the only explanation that covers everything.

I beg to differ. They are against women having sex, but they are also against women having much of anything else. I was self-supporting with a bank account, credit, and the other usual accouterments of adulthood when I married.

When I relocated and got a new job shortly after marriage (in NYC in early ‘70s), I was informed by my new bank that I could open a checking account, but would need my husband’s permission to get a credit card. Same held when I inquired at several other banks.

Then there are the price differentials. It costs more to dry-clean a plain women’s shirt than a plain men’s shirt. It costs more to get female haircuts than male ones. Women routinely get charged more for cars, auto repairs, and assorted other services. And this comes on top of earning about 20% lower pay.
It goes on and on and ON.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
.... The St. Louis measure appears to me to have been a piece of political grandstanding--a largely or totally unnecessary ordinance created mainly as a way of highlighting political issues.
...
And killing an "unnecessary" ordinance sure looks like grandstanding as well. Grandstanding that says to women, "don't take your rights and freedoms for granted."

Look, this is St. Louis. We just had one officer shoot another one, probably because he was black and armed and offering assistance and the first guy didn't recognize him as police.

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.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I can quite understand anybody's outrage and women's all the more...

There is one place in Missouri to get an abortion. One. In the whole state. This is how much lawmakers are controlling women's lives in parts of the US.

Is the Newsweek reporting good? No. Is clickbaity headlining bad? Yes. But are there people here bent on driving women back at least as far as the 1950s? You bet your ass there are.

So fuck you and your pretense of understanding women's outrage.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

My paranoia is showing. Maybe the repealed law was strictly speaking unnecessary, so why bother to repeal it? Unless, that is, the repealers want to give the reverse message to employers. Political grandstanding either way seems likely to have some impact on the way job interviewers and interviewees behave.

That might not be fair of course, but I'm inclined to take RuthW and Soror Magna's point that this isn't about fairness at all. Danger, reactionary forces at work. Does it really matter whether they are trying to turn the clock back by legal means or political ones? Or trying to keep the clock stopped? If you're the one being interviewed, you'll feel the pressure whichever it is. Particularly if you really need a job.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
There is one place in Missouri to get an abortion. One. In the whole state. This is how much lawmakers are controlling women's lives in parts of the US.

Can't you read?

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If there's an issue, it's that of making it more difficult for abortion facilities to be set up state-wide.

It's not like I haven't acknowledged the issue re: abortion throughout this thread.

quote:
are there people here bent on driving women back at least as far as the 1950s? You bet your ass there are.

I have no doubt that's true. But I think people would be more easily won over to combating it if the issues were raised truthfully.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
So fuck you and your pretense of understanding women's outrage.

I'm basically sympathetic to your cause and have a pretty thick skin, but the aggressivity being shown towards me on this thread for having the temerity to establish the facts is making being sympathetic hard. What are you like with actual opponents? And why?

(It's attitudes like this that make me think Trump will be in power until at least 2024. Opponents seem to have no concept of winning over the middle ground).

Adeodatus started a long and thought-provoking discussion in DH a while back about useful idiots.

If those justifiably militating in favour of women's rights (or any other cause) can't be bothered to present the issues accurately*, content themselves with exaggeration and misrepresentation in the hope of enlisting more support, and lash out at anybody challenging this propaganda, then they lay themselves open to the charge of treating their own activists as useful idiots - and in the long run, paying the price for doing so. Don't you think women deserve better than that?

==

*As Ricardus has said, it took my contribution on this thread to actually establish what the issues are, as opposed to what Newsweek and the sources it cites claim they are.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

How very helpful! Because sorting out the issues is what Hell is all about!

I don't care if you're sympathetic to my cause. You're just some guy in France, not an American voter, never mind a Republican politician who needs to change his mind about being a misogynistic asswipe. And I'm not in Hell to win hearts and minds or to hone my argument.

But I will say this about the issue of abortion: this isn't about making it difficult to set up facilities for abortion in Missouri. It's about eliminating them entirely. Look at the map showing all the places in the US that provide abortions. Zoom in a couple of times so you can see the vast expanses -- hundreds and hundreds of miles -- where there are no abortion clinics at all. The governor, who called a special legislative session just for this, isn't simply grandstanding. He's trying to close that one remaining clinic.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW, emphasis mine:
I don't care if you're sympathetic to my cause. You're just some guy

Yeah, it's kinda hard not to get the impression that the problem's right there...

quote:
not an American voter

Oh, is Hell restricted to that readership?

quote:
And I'm not in Hell to win hearts and minds or to hone my argument.

Maybe not, but if my outrage on any topic is fuelled by a false premise, then it would give me pause for thought. YMMV.

quote:
But I will say this about the issue of abortion: this isn't about making it difficult to set up facilities for abortion in Missouri. It's about eliminating them entirely. Look at the map showing all the places in the US that provide abortions. Zoom in a couple of times so you can see the vast expanses -- hundreds and hundreds of miles -- where there are no abortion clinics at all. The governor, who called a special legislative session just for this, isn't simply grandstanding. He's trying to close that one remaining clinic.

Agreed this is terrible.

So why the fuck isn't that the subject of the OP?

Why make do with misleading articles when the truth is bad - and more powerful for being actually true?

[ 25. June 2017, 08:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Eutychus--

Things are in the OP because they're straight from the article. Newsweek may or may not be right on this. But, AFAIK, it's still a respected periodical, as opposed to Newsmax, etc.

Later in the thread, after you started questioning, I provided links to other articles on the same story. They may or may not be accurate, but Newsweek and the sites to which it links aren't the only outlets covering this.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

Newsweek may or may not be right on this... They may or may not be accurate...

I did read the whole of the post but wanted to pick these phrases out because they're the problem. If you're dealing with people whose adherence to the truth is as slippery as Trump, his followers and the Republicans, you have to got to make sure you're speaking the truth and nothing but the truth, otherwise your argument and outrage are fatally flawed from the outset. If you're not speaking truth, you're completely open to being dismissed for lies by the opposition - and you have no come back. "We might be wrong here, but at least we're more truthful than you" ain't good enough.

Part of Trump and the Republicans' strategy (ISTM from across The Pond) is to stir up outrage against targets without particular worry for accuracy or truth. If their opponents are doing the same, then they've lost: they'll only be one set of winners at that game, the Republicans are past masters at it. You're stooping to their level and it simply won't work.

As Michelle Obama said, "When they go low, we go high".

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW, emphasis mine:
I don't care if you're sympathetic to my cause. You're just some guy
Yeah, it's kinda hard not to get the impression that the problem's right there...

Oh, please. That's really stupid.

quote:

quote:
not an American voter
Oh, is Hell restricted to that readership?

Of course not. Duh. It just means it functionally doesn't matter whether you're politically on my side in this or not.

quote:

quote:
And I'm not in Hell to win hearts and minds or to hone my argument.
Maybe not, but if my outrage on any topic is fuelled by a false premise, then it would give me pause for thought. YMMV.

You don't think the St. Louis ordinance matters? Fine. Lamb Chopped doesn't either. But the local chapter of NARAL thinks it matters, and since they're there actually working for abortion rights in Missouri, I'll go with their judgement on this.

St. Louis is a blue-ish city (maybe a very blue city by local standards) in a state that used to be a bellwether but is now pretty red, and I'm sure that chaps state politicians' hides. So there's this back-and-forth between the city's leaders and the state's, and you can say it doesn't matter, but it's how the game is played here. The St. Louis ordinance may have been symbolic, and likewise the state law undoing it -- but don't tell me symbols don't matter. American cities, with their little local politicians, do stuff like this all the time, and it's important to pay attention to what they're signalling, even if you don't think it's substantial.

quote:

quote:
But I will say this about the issue of abortion: this isn't about making it difficult to set up facilities for abortion in Missouri. It's about eliminating them entirely. Look at the map showing all the places in the US that provide abortions. Zoom in a couple of times so you can see the vast expanses -- hundreds and hundreds of miles -- where there are no abortion clinics at all. The governor, who called a special legislative session just for this, isn't simply grandstanding. He's trying to close that one remaining clinic.
Agreed this is terrible.

So why the fuck isn't that the subject of the OP?

Why make do with misleading articles when the truth is bad - and more powerful for being actually true?

Because Golden Key read an article in Newsweek, which is in general a fairly respectable news reporting and gathering operation, if not absolutely top drawer, and she didn't know that there were other things going on. It's not as though there's been a lot of national reporting about this. The Washington Post only ran Associated Press articles about it, and the New York Times, LA Times, The Atlantic, and Vox don't seem to have covered it at all. I imagine the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News, the two big papers up in NorCal, which is Golden Key's area, didn't cover this. Golden Key probably doesn't read the Missouri newspapers. I know I don't.

So the real question is, what's the difference between you and Golden Key that made you question what you read when she didn't? And is she really so terrible for being different from you in that way?

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Part of Trump and the Republicans' strategy (ISTM from across The Pond) is to stir up outrage against targets without particular worry for accuracy or truth. If their opponents are doing the same, then they've lost: they'll only be one set of winners at that game, the Republicans are past masters at it. You're stooping to their level and it simply won't work.

OK, if you're so well informed, tell me exactly how the Republican politicians in Missouri employed this strategy in this affair.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

RuthW I'm on a phone for now and can't answer adequately, I will as soon as I can, but in short you're still not listening to what I'm saying. There is good reason to doubt the Newsweek report, and more particularly the headline, because it is not true.

And because it is not true, in the long run it is detracting from the actual underlying issue of womenis rights. I'm with Steije on this.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

Newsweek may or may not be right on this... They may or may not be accurate...
I did read the whole of the post but wanted to pick these phrases out because they're the problem. If you're dealing with people whose adherence to the truth is as slippery as Trump . . .

Another way of framing the problem is this: you are not the intended audience for this piece.

The intended audience for this piece is women, and in particular, women who have collectively experienced one, some or all of the abuses rained upon women as the result of not being valued, not being seen as equal, not being believed, not being trusted, and whose reported experience and subsequent outrage gets routinely brushed aside as not being supported by the facts (as defined by people without this experience). We're expected to wait calmly until the predicted evil outcomes come to pass; then we're permitted our outrage. But then is always too late, and the damage has been done.

It's another version of the "not all men" problem.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I'm being (not) paid to read this, and I'm confused.

I thought this was a fairly straight forward case of rights women had previously enjoyed (however they were obtained) being unilaterally removed (however they are being removed) and that means it's a Bad Thing happening.

Wake me up when you get around to arguing whether or not the UK has a constitution.

[ 25. June 2017, 13:25: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Experiencing prejudice in job interviews is not confined to women. And we don't have gender-specific topics on the Ship.

Plus it really isn't a general truth that you can only empathise and understand being demeaned if you've had the same specific demeaning experience. Quoting Solzhenitsyn, to taste that sea of bitterness only needs one gulp.

And there is a lot of demeaning about. Sometimes demeaned people demean other people. Experiencing demeaning can make us bitter, as well as angry. I've lived through that in my own life, to my own cost.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

(This wasn't addressed to me but I'd like to comment anyway)

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
So the real question is, what's the difference between you and Golden Key that made you question what you read when she didn't? And is she really so terrible for being different from you in that way?

Personally, if I hadn't read the whole thread, I would have taken the article at face value, so I wouldn't criticise anyone for doing the same. I got into this argument because it seemed to me that Eutychus, just for questioning the accuracy of the article, was being jumped on with the same opprobrium as if he was actually supporting the legislation.

This pisses me off for two reasons. One is that Eutychus is a poster who can often make me see things in a different way and so he is someone I will pay attention to. The other is that it feeds into the goodies-and-baddies, all-or-nothing mass stupidity that seems to have the Internet in its grip. If you don't agree 100% with Our Side then you must be a covert supporter of The Other Side. The idea that any deviation whatsoever from Our Side's Opinion could be advanced in good faith is as alien and esoteric as Renaissance Kabbalah.

If you criticise Jeremy Corbyn, it's because you're a right-wing crypto-Tory. If you criticise the government's Brexit negotiations, you're a treacherous saboteur who wants the EU to 'win'. Say anything bad about Bernie Sanders, it's because you're a tool of Wall Street. If you think Brexit should follow Parliamentary due process, you're an enemy of the people. If you think the NHS needs reform, you must want American-style privatisation. If you say anything at all positive about sharia law, you must want women to be flogged in the streets. If you criticise an article about discrimination in Missouri, you must want to put women's rights back to the 1950s.

Fuck that.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I think in this case, it's the expression of outrage against a poorly referenced article without expressing equivalent outrage at the damage that'll be done to real-life women in MI that's coming off as more than a little peevish.

"What's this? An report detailing how, at 9am tomorrow morning, a meteorite will strike the Earth and kill everyone? Peasants, don't they know that until it actually impacts, it's an asteroid?"

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

But Eutychus has condemned the legislation, several times.

I haven't, so that's a fair critique of me as far as it goes. But if we're going down that route, there are posters on this thread whose contributions have been wholly or mainly complaining about me and Eutychus. So apparently in the minds of those posters, the importance of women's rights ranks second or third behind the importance of defending ... well, I'm not even sure what, really, maybe the importance of not having to answer questions about sources.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But Eutychus has condemned the legislation, several times.

His seventh post managed to utter mild concern. His previous six were centred around the lack of correlation between the wording of SBwhatever and the Newsweek's article's headline.

On that basis, it's not an unreasonable assumption to make that he's swallowing the camel, rather than straining for the gnat.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But Eutychus has condemned the legislation, several times.
His seventh post managed to utter mild concern. His previous six were centred around the lack of correlation between the wording of SBwhatever and the Newsweek's article's headline.

On that basis, it's not an unreasonable assumption to make that he's swallowing the camel, rather than straining for the gnat.

Sure, go ahead and more concisely make the point I was busy typing and post before I could.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

My work here is done. Play nice, y'all.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW, emphasis mine:
I don't care if you're sympathetic to my cause. You're just some guy
Yeah, it's kinda hard not to get the impression that the problem's right there...

It's hard not to get the impression that you think the problem is that we don't all buy your mansplainy "don't worry your pretty little heads" argument. It's hard not to get the impression that you think you know more about women's rights in the USA than women in the USA. It's hard not to get the impression that you think being called "some guy" is dismissive and yet all you've done is dismiss everyone else's concerns and experiences.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Experiencing prejudice in job interviews is not confined to women.

Correct. But I suspect very few men have been denied jobs because they might get pregnant, regardless of whether they deny any such intention.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And we don't have gender-specific topics on the Ship.

Did someone claim otherwise? In any case, I thought we were discussing a Newsweek article.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Plus it really isn't a general truth that you can only empathise and understand being demeaned if you've had the same specific demeaning experience. Quoting Solzhenitsyn, to taste that sea of bitterness only needs one gulp.

Again, did someone claim otherwise? AFAICS, one can hardly isolate a subgroup of any size in the US, at least, without also revealing a group which has suffered the slings and arrows of discrimination (broad, not legal, sense). Discrimination seems to be what we Americans specalize in, closely followed by its accompanying contest over "Who Has Suffered More?".

I am suggesting that an article which aims to stir outrage in a particular group might well be worded (and headlined, usually by a different person) differently than an article aiming to carefully analyze, for a wide general audience, a particular piece of legislation. I am also suggesting that, when one's outrage gets stirred, it's often useful to ask oneself why.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It's hard not to get the impression that you think the problem is that we don't all buy your mansplainy "don't worry your pretty little heads" argument.

Let me pick up here since it's convenient and I've been away from the thread for a while.

Just where do you get the above from in my posts?

My concern is that not that women's rights are nothing to worry about but that y'all aren't worried enough about the fact that the headline of the article linked to in the OP isn't truthful.

quote:
all you've done is dismiss everyone else's concerns and experiences.

Again, I've repeatedly expressed my support for those concerns here. Of course your concerns and experiences are real and legitimate. What bothers me is that the proximate source following which those concerns are being expressed is wildly inaccurate.

This has now been characterised as straining at gnat and swallowing a camel. In this case, for reasons explained several times and by several posters, I don't think the truthfulness or otherwise of the source article is a gnat, and that the camel of women's rights is not well served by it.

I think Jesus was on the money when he said the truth shall set us free, and continue to believe that even if the CIA misappropriated the phrase.

Yes the issue of women's rights is a legitmate concern.

Yes doubtless these legal manouevres are a way of extending a misogynistic grip on the population, and yes this shocks me.

But asserting that "Women on Birth Control Could Be Barred From Working If Missouri Lawmakers Get Their Way" is a gross distortion of the facts of the matter. Nobody has contradicted me on this.

Now imagine, I know it's hard, but just imagine if you will, that I am a young moderate woman in Missouri with professional aspirations reading Newsweek. It's an epiphany. I get all riled up about the allegations in the article and its links and devote some energy to militating to oppose the law.

Then suddenly I'm challenged by some other people pointing out the facts: how the law doesn't actually say anything at all about birth control or working or landlords interviewing me before giving me housing.

At which point my enthusiasm for militating for women's rights is dealt a major blow by the fact that I have been spurred to action by an untruth. The movement has just failed to win over another moderate, its credibility forever damaged.

Again, this is why my confidence in Trump losing in 2020 is ebbing rapidly. Politics over there seems so utterly polarised on any issue that people on both sides resort to throwing as much mud as possible at the other side and hoping some of it sticks, rather than having a fact-based approach.

Indeed, that seems to be the tactics of those opposing me here.

They prefer to throw around allegations of what I must have meant rather than actually picking up on what I actually wrote. That never used to be the way, around here, even in Hell.

Of course there are emotions in play here as well as facts, but that doesn't mean the facts aren't important.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
So the real question is, what's the difference between you and Golden Key that made you question what you read when she didn't?

I can't speak for GK, but the headline sounded extreme, and my suspicions about its truthfulness were aroused by the fact that Newsweek, which as you say is fairly reputable, didn't link directly to the bill in question but rather to another, clearly partisan source.

(Besides which, fact-checking is a large part of both my ministry and my business, so it's kind of second nature. As I said, that's how I roll. I don't expect everyone to be like me, but I do reserve the right to be me.)

quote:
And is she really so terrible for being different from you in that way?

There you go again, attributing value judgements to me on no factual basis.

Are those really your standard rules of engagementin debate? I weep for the world.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
I am suggesting that an article which aims to stir outrage in a particular group might well be worded (and headlined, usually by a different person) differently than an article aiming to carefully analyze, for a wide general audience, a particular piece of legislation. I am also suggesting that, when one's outrage gets stirred, it's often useful to ask oneself why.

My outrage is stirred by the fact that the headline is untrue and that this appears to be deemed insignificant provided the outrage for the appropriate cause is generated.

For the avoidance of doubt, my personal outrage is directly proportional, and not inversely proportional, to how much I think the appropriate cause is a good one.

If Republic of Gilead proponents were to go around claiming that St Louis wants to force all its inhabitants by law to accommodate socialist lesbian couples and their children, it would bother me a whole lot less.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

The Newsweek headline is journalistic clickbait. Its purpose is to draw eyes. In that respect, it works. Headlines usually get written by editors, not reporters; gaps and lapses between what articles say and what headlines claim they say are fairly common. The gap here is especially large, as the outcome claimed in the headline, while at least theoretically possible, has been leapt to over several intervening steps which do not appear in the article (and which, for all we know, were once there but were cut. Add "badly-edited" to the complaint below.).

As to the article's content (neither well-written nor reported, IMO), here’s what it should have pointed out:

1. A St. Louis city ordinance barring discrimination against women has been struck down by Missouri state legislators. (What specific protections were covered in the ordinance?)

2. The Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that Hobby Lobby (HQ in Oklahoma City, OK, but ruling could potentially apply nationally) could refuse to pay for birth control coverage for its employees.

3. Depending on the answer(s) to the question in # 1 above (and how widespread similar ordinances are in other places), this may mean that women job candidates can now legally be asked (in Missouri, anyway) if they are pregnant, plan to become pregnant, or are taking steps to prevent pregnancy.

4. Maternity leave is a big issue for most employers. Leave tends to be lengthier than, say, for the flu or even bereavement; post-birth, women who originally planned to return to work not infrequently change their minds; lengthier leave times often mean hiring &/or training temp replacements, which costs money, etc. etc., and any maternity benefits paid by employers are expensive.

5. Catch-22 for women 15-50 seeking employment: due to costs involved in maternity benefits & leave, employers may regard women job candidates NOT taking birth control as undesirable over other candidates. Due to employer religious convictions, employers may regard women job candidates TAKING birth control as undesirable over other candidates. (Candidates will NOT necessarily know who is which.) Every female of working-plus-childbearing age is going to fall into one of these two categories (using or not-using birth control), and her prospects of employment affected accordingly.

I grant you, even from that perspective, the headline's a big stretch. Because it lies within the realm of possibility (however barely), I wouldn't necessarily call it untrue.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Dude, it's not difficult. Imagine you live in an area so unspeakably reactionary that an actual law has to be passed to prevent landlords and employers discriminating against women who take the birth control pill, or who are likely to get pregnant (and in a man's eyes, that's every woman from 15-45), or may have visited an abortion clinic. An actual law. The people living around you are that awful.

Now imagine a year after that law is passed, a year living in that same place where an employer can no longer say to you over the interview desk "You're young and attractive, you're recently married. You're going to get pregnant, aren't you? So, your CV shows you're easily qualified for this job, but because you have a womb, we're hiring Bill instead,", another bill goes before the State repealing those exact parts of the law which prevent your prospective employers from discriminating against your reproductive choices.

Now imagine reading an article in Newsweek about the State attempting to take away your newly-won rights.

Do you (a) get upset that you're about to lose your newly-won rights, or (b) get upset that the Bill before the state legislature doesn't specifically mention the rights they're about to take away from you, and just refers to a list of numbers that some activist has taken the time and trouble to identify as the exact parts of the law that enshrine your rights?

Personally, I'd go for (a). YMMV.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Experiencing prejudice in job interviews is not confined to women.

This is clearly true. But puzzling that you wanted to say it. When gay people are prevented from marrying the reflex to explain that all sorts of other people might experience impediments to marriage seems odd. Likewise the impediment to explain that all sorts of people got lynched in the Southern States besides black people.

If my friend complains about his/her stomach ache I don't feel the need to explain that plenty of other people have stomach ache as well. And if my first instinct is to cavil over the inaccuracy involved in his description of his stomach ache that means something, regardless of the technical merits of my case.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Do you (a) get upset that you're about to lose your newly-won rights, or (b) get upset that the Bill before the state legislature doesn't specifically mention the rights they're about to take away from you, and just refers to a list of numbers that some activist has taken the time and trouble to identify as the exact parts of the law that enshrine your rights?

Personally, I'd go for (a). YMMV.

Pfft. The correct answer, as all right-thinking people know, is (c): complain about some guy on the Internet not showing the requisite degree of outrage.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Personally, I'd go for (a). YMMV.

And if you were living anywhere in Missouri other than St Louis, you would be mistaken, because contrary to what the headline implies, you didn't have those rights in the first place.

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
I grant you, even from that perspective, the headline's a big stretch. Because it lies within the realm of possibility (however barely), I wouldn't necessarily call it untrue.

I think using the word "barred" in association with "lawmakers getting their way" clearly implies an imminent, direct legal prohibition here, and not indirect discrimination. But aside from that, you've pretty much summed up what I think's wrong with it.

quote:
The Newsweek headline is journalistic clickbait. Its purpose is to draw eyes. In that respect, it works.

That's a pretty low bar, and if it wasn't for the likes of me questioning the content, that's as low as the debate would fly.

[ 25. June 2017, 18:38: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Part of Trump and the Republicans' strategy (ISTM from across The Pond) is to stir up outrage against targets without particular worry for accuracy or truth. If their opponents are doing the same, then they've lost: they'll only be one set of winners at that game, the Republicans are past masters at it. You're stooping to their level and it simply won't work.
OK, if you're so well informed, tell me exactly how the Republican politicians in Missouri employed this strategy in this affair.

Don't think I did claim to be well-informed - it wasn't my intention. All I said was "ISTM"; this is my impression. So I don't know if they've done it in this specific case, but my point is a general one: truth is vital and crucial, especially when one side quite regularly bullshits. If you're not truthful yourself (whether deliberately or inadvertantly), how are you going to call them out on their bullshit with any integrity? Their response will be, "right back at you".

But it's not just that: it's how the whole political "debate" in the UK and, again it seems to me, the US is simply 2 sides taking up fixed positions, shouting and lobbing insults at each other, believing any negative story about the other side (no matter if it's true or not), claiming anyone who doesn't take their side 100% is clearly on the side of the enemy, and thinking it fine to make insinuations and misrepresentations of those people - even if they would be people more likely to come on your side, or who may even be on your side.

It's depressing, it's the reason nothing ever changes (because shouts, insults and misrepresentations are easy to dismiss and because they never win anyone over) - and it's all over this thread.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Personally, I'd go for (a). YMMV.
And if you were living anywhere in Missouri other than St Louis, you would be mistaken, because contrary to what the headline implies, you didn't have those rights in the first place.

Eh, you're reaching here. Missouri has a pop. of 6m, and the St. Louis metro area a pop. of 3m.

Short headline is slightly inaccurate. 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.

I'm going to say categorically that you're on the wrong side of this argument. Folk have got an absolute right to be brandishing their pitchforks outside City Hall over this. You're a decent bloke, and as such you should apologise for being an ass.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

The headline is misleading and deliberately so. It deserves nothing but criticism and the worthiness of the cause it seeks to defend, which I have at no point called into question here, makes that criticism more valid, not less.

If none of us believe that any more we might as well start taking lessons from Fox News instead of trashing it for its propaganda masquerading as reporting. If we don't think the causes we support are worth more than that, shame on us.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
and as such you should apologise for being an ass.

Could bet that wasn't going to happen.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Don't think I did claim to be well-informed - it wasn't my intention. All I said was "ISTM"; this is my impression. So I don't know if they've done it in this specific case, but my point is a general one: truth is vital and crucial, especially when one side quite regularly bullshits.

If you're not well-informed, you're unlikely to speak much truth.

quote:
But it's not just that: it's how the whole political "debate" in the UK and, again it seems to me, the US is simply 2 sides taking up fixed positions, shouting and lobbing insults at each other, believing any negative story about the other side (no matter if it's true or not), claiming anyone who doesn't take their side 100% is clearly on the side of the enemy, and thinking it fine to make insinuations and misrepresentations of those people - even if they would be people more likely to come on your side, or who may even be on your side.

But that's not at all what's happening here. The two polarized sides of American political debate are not being represented here. Eutychus is hardly a conservative Republican. Everyone on this thread is to the left of the US center as far as I know, so this is essentially an internecine fight.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
The Newsweek headline is journalistic clickbait. Its purpose is to draw eyes. In that respect, it works.
That's a pretty low bar, and if it wasn't for the likes of me questioning the content, that's as low as the debate would fly.

You're so noble! And high-minded!

quote:
Now imagine, I know it's hard, but just imagine if you will, that I am a young moderate woman in Missouri with professional aspirations reading Newsweek. It's an epiphany. I get all riled up about the allegations in the article and its links and devote some energy to militating to oppose the law.

Then suddenly I'm challenged by some other people pointing out the facts: how the law doesn't actually say anything at all about birth control or working or landlords interviewing me before giving me housing.

At which point my enthusiasm for militating for women's rights is dealt a major blow by the fact that I have been spurred to action by an untruth. The movement has just failed to win over another moderate, its credibility forever damaged.

Again, this is why my confidence in Trump losing in 2020 is ebbing rapidly. Politics over there seems so utterly polarised on any issue that people on both sides resort to throwing as much mud as possible at the other side and hoping some of it sticks, rather than having a fact-based approach.

One bad headline doesn't incontrovertibly damage an entire movement, and I doubt very much that there are a lot of intelligent young women in Missouri or anywhere else whose thoughts about Democrats, democracy, feminism, women's rights, and abortion rights are going to be sent completely sidewise by one stupid headline.

And drawing a direct line from polarization in US politics to a Trump re-election ... c'mon. If US politics were as polarized as you think, there wouldn't have been so many two-time Obama voters voting for Trump. Trump will lose in 2020 if the Democrats can get their shit together and offer something better and can get their messaging together so people feel that it's something better.

[ 25. June 2017, 21:29: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
The Newsweek headline is journalistic clickbait. Its purpose is to draw eyes.
<snip>
I grant you, even from that perspective, the headline's a big stretch. Because it lies within the realm of possibility (however barely), I wouldn't necessarily call it untrue.

The effect it has on me is that I will never again trust Newsweek as a source of information.

Moo

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Newsweek's quality has been sliding. The thing is, there don't seem to be a lot of good sources on the stuff that's happening in state legislatures unless you want to read 50 newspapers. (And the state-level stuff is really, really important. The American Legislative Exchange Council has done a metric ton of ugly work in state legislatures.) So we get are things like this from Newsweek, Huffington Post, and Yahoo News, and then we have to read the Kansas City Star or whatever to figure out what the hell is going on. And then of course we're then reading a paper we don't usually read and thus don't know their editorial stance.

So for example, if shit is going down in Orange County, California, someone elsewhere interested in reading up on it will go for the first hit, probably -- the Orange County Register. And they're not going to know that the editorial stance there is pretty conservative, and that they need to read the OC Weekly to get the other side.

[ 25. June 2017, 21:41: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The headline is misleading and deliberately so. It deserves nothing but criticism and the worthiness of the cause it seeks to defend, which I have at no point called into question here, makes that criticism more valid, not less.

If none of us believe that any more we might as well start taking lessons from Fox News instead of trashing it for its propaganda masquerading as reporting. If we don't think the causes we support are worth more than that, shame on us.

Come on then, Bernstein. Knock yourself out: tell us how it should have been reported.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Off the top of my head:

"Proposed repeal of St Louis ordinance exposes state-wide threat to women's rights", followed by a simpler version of the explanation Ohher posted earlier.

Including links to both pieces of legislation in question in the article, so people actually have the option of checking the article against the facts. A link to the actual subject matter being referenced is a good test of whether something is news or propaganda (a lot of BBC articles fail this test, by the way).

Disclosure: writing appropriate headlines for press releases is something I get paid to do.

[ 25. June 2017, 22:01: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

"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. There's a House style to adhere to, and there's some click-throughness that probably means your paper goes bust.

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?

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Disclosure: writing appropriate headlines for press releases is something I get paid to do.

OK, this all makes sense now. The clumsy and artless headline has pushed a button where you function, triggering this massive 'splainilepsy.

While I disagree with your tactical insistence on focusing on technicalities to the exclusion of the overarching strategic significance, your actions are at least consistent. But, precision is not accuracy. Just because the stone thrown into the puddle did not hit the target directly, it does not mean that the mud splashed up was accidental.

You have a good message buried in your posts - about the value of clarity, and avoiding sensationalization. But I fear that you are trying to sell hand-sanitizer to the front lines of a shit-flinging contest.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

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.

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 ...

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

[Biased]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

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.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

[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 ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

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...

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Hi Eutychus, I got that reading from reading the actual law, because there are also a lot of reporting requirements within that law.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

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.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

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.

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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!

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

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.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

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 ... ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

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 ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

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?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

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.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

[Killing me]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

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.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

And anti-discrimination laws can't stop that, unfortunately.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

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

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Proving that sort of discrimination is highly problematic. AS a lawyer, I do indeed know that! [Razz]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Oh, agreed. This is the tragedy of this thread - that we're all shooting at our own side.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

So, who else has heard of wikitribune?

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
So, who else has heard of wikitribune?

It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

First I've heard of it. I wonder if, like the Society of Professional Journalists, they will develop a Code of Ethics?

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

And following up on what RuthW said: support your local newspaper. Heck, support two.

Local, national and world.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

@ 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.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

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.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

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 ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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 ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

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.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
So, who else has heard of wikitribune?

Looks interesting! Thanks, Rook.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0