homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Hell   » Friggin' hypocritical self-righteous misogynists! (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Friggin' hypocritical self-righteous misogynists!
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941

 - Posted      Profile for Stejjie   Author's homepage   Email Stejjie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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".

--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist

Posts: 999 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

Posts: 24226 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 24226 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16628 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607

 - Posted      Profile for Ohher   Author's homepage   Email Ohher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Formerly Foolhearty. Back after somewhat less than 40 years in the wilderness.

Posts: 99 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8417 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 20602 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(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.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 6978 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?"

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8417 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 6978 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8417 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16076 | From: out of the corner of your eye | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My work here is done. Play nice, y'all.

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8417 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5270 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607

 - Posted      Profile for Ohher   Author's homepage   Email Ohher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Formerly Foolhearty. Back after somewhat less than 40 years in the wilderness.

Posts: 99 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16628 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16628 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607

 - Posted      Profile for Ohher   Author's homepage   Email Ohher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Formerly Foolhearty. Back after somewhat less than 40 years in the wilderness.

Posts: 99 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8417 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12116 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 6978 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16628 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941

 - Posted      Profile for Stejjie   Author's homepage   Email Stejjie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist

Posts: 999 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8417 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16628 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
and as such you should apologise for being an ass.

Could bet that wasn't going to happen.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16076 | From: out of the corner of your eye | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

Posts: 24226 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20003 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

Posts: 24226 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8417 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16628 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"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?

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8417 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
RooK

Rocky Mountain SLAYER
# 1852

 - Posted      Profile for RooK   Author's homepage   Email RooK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 15034 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ...

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 6978 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Biased]

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 19748 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Related (IMHO): "Bill would assure California workers of reproductive freedom>" (SF Chronicle).

And, on the Missouri situation, an AP article from June 12th, via SFGate (an SF Chronicle site): "Missouri lawmakers return for special session on abortion". This is from before the Newsweek article.

quote:
Missouri lawmakers returned to the Capitol on Monday after Republican Gov. Eric Greitens called for a special session aimed at imposing more abortion restrictions and undoing a St. Louis ordinance that bans discrimination over abortion and pregnancies.

Greitens, an abortion opponent, announced last week he was bringing legislators back to work, the second time he's done so in less than a month. At issue now are a federal judge's ruling striking down some state laws on abortion and the St. Louis ordinance, which prohibits discrimination in housing and employment based on "reproductive health decisions."

(Italics mine.) Same basic info as Newsweek, ISTM.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17262 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have read some of the bill in question, the SB5. From the text of the bill the purpose is to put additional limits on abortion, banning most forms of abortion and insisting on reporting of all kinds of abortion. I don't have the knowledge or interest to work out the clauses and laws that are being repealed in the first section. As I am aware that the woman from Missouri posting on this thread is anti-abortion from the Dead Horses threads on these topics, I am afraid I don't trust her judgement in this case.

In addition there is a perception that a number of forms of contraception are regarded as abortifacient*, which will mean that contraception will fall under such a law.

* this is debatable and has been in Dead Horses.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13291 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16076 | From: out of the corner of your eye | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[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 ]

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16628 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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...

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16628 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi Eutychus, I got that reading from reading the actual law, because there are also a lot of reporting requirements within that law.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13291 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Eutychus--

ISTM that there's a marked difference in style. AP's style tends to be simple, unemotional, and direct. The Newsweek article (and the Feministing, IIRC) are more expressive. That doesn't *necessarily* have anything to do with basic accuracy.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17262 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Hi Eutychus, I got that reading from reading the actual law, because there are also a lot of reporting requirements within that law.

We're on the same page here. I wasn't referring to you.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Eutychus--

ISTM that there's a marked difference in style. AP's style tends to be simple, unemotional, and direct. The Newsweek article (and the Feministing, IIRC) are more expressive. That doesn't *necessarily* have anything to do with basic accuracy.

[brick wall] 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.

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16628 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ohher, mdijon

I'm on holiday and should have stayed on holiday! Apologies, my post was a clumsy attempt to spread a bit of oil on troubled waters.

The AP article confirms that Eutychus and others have been right to criticise the Newsweek article. The differences are a matter of substance, not style.

Lamb Chopped's personal position on abortion has nothing to do with her view, confirmed by AP, that the St Louis provision was largely symbolic.

And with that, I'm back on holiday!

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 20602 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Eutychus--

As I highlighted in the AP quote, work and housing rights *are* at issue. AIUI, they had been at issue; then there was a law to prevent discrimination on that basis; and now there's a move to repeal the anti-discrimination law.

So, while the proposed law may not say "hey, looky here, everybody plague prospective employees and tenants, of the female persuasion, with deeply rude questions about how they manage their bodies", it's making that discrimination legal again.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17262 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's not clear that this is what is happening in SB5, because it comes under a section that says repeal section x, y and z of statute 999. And you have to know or check another whole raft of bills to find out that bit.

I found this out the hard way reading canonical legislation when formally drafting a new team instrument.

[ 26. June 2017, 07:16: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13291 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16628 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Eutychus--

As I highlighted in the AP quote, work and housing rights *are* at issue. AIUI, they had been at issue...

See, here's where you're going wrong. They had not been at issue. Other laws, particularly of the privacy type, had been barring that kind of discrimination for years.

So why the new and later repealed law, if those rights were already covered?

Political grandstanding, that's what. Soon to be matched by the other side in the repeal.

The net effect when it comes to landlords, employers, etc is to put us right back where we were before-- which is to say, protected by privacy laws.

Really. We're not complete barbarians. Only partial ones.

And Moo has the right idea about Newsweek.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 19748 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8417 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16628 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools