In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On November 23 2016 10:55 RealityIsKing wrote: Look there are problems with the right and there are problems with the left and they all need to be fixed.
The left have a very apparent problem in that they cultivate professional victims utilizing movements such as your BLM (those people needs to pay attention on how Koreans protest through peaceful means) and/or your third wave man-hating/gender dividing feminism (which is the dominant concept of feminism right now).
Right now the ruling party is the right so we have the power to focus on getting rid of the professional victimhood industry.
Simple as that.
I agree that there's a problem with victim mentality in some versions of some significant movements of the left. I'd note that there's also a few of them on the right.
though I think you're overstating the issues with third wave feminism. most of it isn't man-hating. there are considerable issues with it. I'd be interested in your response to reading the wiki on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism
First of all, Wikipedia's social issue pages are astroturfed by professional victims so there the flag.
#MaleTears, #KillAllMen were all pushed by the current generation of feminism.
You can't convince people that it isn't about hating man.
Using fake statistics that women gets paid 79% of what a man makes by doing the same hr and job to guilt males into donating to their cause is certainly not beneficial.
When both parties get drunk and the female can just lie and say that she got sexual assaulted and the male's life is permanently ruined is certainly not about gender equality either.
So many issues with the current education system when they teach about feminism, flaming the war between genders.
"First of all, Wikipedia's social issue pages are astroturfed by professional victims so there the flag." could you clarify that? You're either using terms in ways I haven't seen or autocorrect hates you.
and just because ther eare some bad eggs in 3rd wave feminism doesn't mean the entire movement or even most of it is that way. you always hear about the extremes, not the work done by the reasonable folk.
Astroturf in the context of wikipedia means that it is being heavily edited to favor the said topic and downplay its flaws and bad news.
Third wave feminism spews the 79% pay myth and the 1 in 4 women get raped is not beneficial at all and those two are pretty much their main points around college campuses and through social media platforms.
Another disgusting thing they do is their attempt to demonize MRAs when they claim to be about "gender equality".
Assuming (quite reasonably) that he gets to nominate at least one Supreme Court justice, this is going to be law until either A) The composition of the Supreme Court changes enough that it leans against this law B) Democrats take control of the House in addition to the Senate and Presidency C) Enough House Republicans decide to vote with Democrats to repeal it D) Democrats get control of the Senate and basically attach repealing it to every bill the Senate passes.
Those are listed in order of likelihood in my opinion. The First Amendment Defense Act is probably going to be law for at least 15 to 20 years.
This is the same person who like 30 years ago said if the country needs him to president, he will put his business life on hold, become president and save it. Now the initial portion of that is reality despite every single prediction and "analysis". This is the last person you should be pre-judging or underestimating, he did something extraordinary and I'd wait and see how he does with his 4 years. Even democrats are already getting ready to work with him because he has some ideas for both sides.
So, uh, did you read the stuff I linked? I'm not pre-judging him, I'm judging him by his campaign promises which are still on his site. I'm not underestimating him, I'm expecting him to sign into law a bill that I think is terrible. It will allow stuff like people refusing to sell birth control products without the prospective buyer producing a marriage certificate, as well as any sort of discrimination anyone feels inclined to towards anyone who is LGBTQ. If you don't think he's going to sign this into law, if you think he's going to welch on his campaign promises, than what grounds do you have for presuming [i]anything[i] about what he'll do as president?
On November 23 2016 07:33 biology]major wrote:Abortion --> Liberal thinking: woman's right to choose sometimes even up to third trimester. Conservative thinking: morally ambiguous ethical dilemma, why risk having to make this choice when there are ways to protect yourself in 99.9% of cases with contraceptive use? If you don't have access to contraception and don't want to get pregnant don't have sex. Same thing again, one is about changing the rules and society, the other is about changing yourself.
Quick translation here of the part I bolded. This doesn't effect men at all because they can't get pregnant. Women of sufficient wealth can almost always get birth control (unless everyone in their area is refusing to sell it because of moral reasons). That leaves poor women. So what you just said is "Insufficiently wealthy women don't deserve to have sex with men, regardless of emotions or relationship status, without having to shoulder the risk of getting pregnant and being required by the government to carry that pregnancy to term." Are you still okay with this statement?
Yes, if you are unable to afford birth control, then you have more important things to worry about than casual sex. Your stance is basically, "these women are so poor, let's give them the chance to bail out with abortion when they have casual sex because that would make it fair".
I wasn't aware of his anti LGBTQ stuff, he seems like he doesn't give a shit about that area of politics.
How do you feel about the republican policies to defund family planning clinics? It's no coincidence that the states that cut funding to clinics have seen increased rates of pregnancies and births in low income families. Needless to say, more unwanted pregnancies also leads to more abortions. Abstinence is not a solution btw, at least not a good one, as the states that focus on abstinence only education have the highest rates of teen pregnancy.
On November 23 2016 10:55 RealityIsKing wrote: Look there are problems with the right and there are problems with the left and they all need to be fixed.
The left have a very apparent problem in that they cultivate professional victims utilizing movements such as your BLM (those people needs to pay attention on how Koreans protest through peaceful means) and/or your third wave man-hating/gender dividing feminism (which is the dominant concept of feminism right now).
Right now the ruling party is the right so we have the power to focus on getting rid of the professional victimhood industry.
Simple as that.
I agree that there's a problem with victim mentality in some versions of some significant movements of the left. I'd note that there's also a few of them on the right.
though I think you're overstating the issues with third wave feminism. most of it isn't man-hating. there are considerable issues with it. I'd be interested in your response to reading the wiki on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism
First of all, Wikipedia's social issue pages are astroturfed by professional victims so there the flag.
#MaleTears, #KillAllMen were all pushed by the current generation of feminism.
You can't convince people that it isn't about hating man.
Using fake statistics that women gets paid 79% of what a man makes by doing the same hr and job to guilt males into donating to their cause is certainly not beneficial.
When both parties get drunk and the female can just lie and say that she got sexual assaulted and the male's life is permanently ruined is certainly not about gender equality either.
So many issues with the current education system when they teach about feminism, flaming the war between genders.
"First of all, Wikipedia's social issue pages are astroturfed by professional victims so there the flag." could you clarify that? You're either using terms in ways I haven't seen or autocorrect hates you.
and just because ther eare some bad eggs in 3rd wave feminism doesn't mean the entire movement or even most of it is that way. you always hear about the extremes, not the work done by the reasonable folk.
Astroturf in the context of wikipedia means that it is being heavily edited to favor the said topic and downplay its flaws and bad news.
Third wave feminism spews the 79% pay myth and the 1 in 4 women get raped is not beneficial at all and those two are pretty much their main points around college campuses and through social media platforms.
Another disgusting thing they do is their attempt to demonize MRAs when they claim to be about "gender equality".
The 1 in 4 woman rape anywhere in the U.S. is such a ridiculous claim that requires a mind bending level of cognitive dissonance to believe.
On November 23 2016 10:55 RealityIsKing wrote: Look there are problems with the right and there are problems with the left and they all need to be fixed.
The left have a very apparent problem in that they cultivate professional victims utilizing movements such as your BLM (those people needs to pay attention on how Koreans protest through peaceful means) and/or your third wave man-hating/gender dividing feminism (which is the dominant concept of feminism right now).
Right now the ruling party is the right so we have the power to focus on getting rid of the professional victimhood industry.
Simple as that.
I agree that there's a problem with victim mentality in some versions of some significant movements of the left. I'd note that there's also a few of them on the right.
though I think you're overstating the issues with third wave feminism. most of it isn't man-hating. there are considerable issues with it. I'd be interested in your response to reading the wiki on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism
First of all, Wikipedia's social issue pages are astroturfed by professional victims so there the flag.
#MaleTears, #KillAllMen were all pushed by the current generation of feminism.
You can't convince people that it isn't about hating man.
Using fake statistics that women gets paid 79% of what a man makes by doing the same hr and job to guilt males into donating to their cause is certainly not beneficial.
When both parties get drunk and the female can just lie and say that she got sexual assaulted and the male's life is permanently ruined is certainly not about gender equality either.
So many issues with the current education system when they teach about feminism, flaming the war between genders.
"First of all, Wikipedia's social issue pages are astroturfed by professional victims so there the flag." could you clarify that? You're either using terms in ways I haven't seen or autocorrect hates you.
and just because ther eare some bad eggs in 3rd wave feminism doesn't mean the entire movement or even most of it is that way. you always hear about the extremes, not the work done by the reasonable folk.
Astroturf in the context of wikipedia means that it is being heavily edited to favor the said topic and downplay its flaws and bad news.
Third wave feminism spews the 79% pay myth and the 1 in 4 women get raped is not beneficial at all and those two are pretty much their main points around college campuses and through social media platforms.
Another disgusting thing they do is their attempt to demonize MRAs when they claim to be about "gender equality".
what evidence do you have of this astroturfing?
and what evidence do you have as to what % of 3rd wave feminists are supporting the inaccurate stuff?
it seems odd that you seems so vehement against 3rd wave feminists, yet don't have that vehemence against MRAs, who are another group that, like 3rd wave feminists, has a mix of good and very troublesome aspects.
National editor at Politico Michael Hirsh resigned after publishing the home addresses of alt-right figurehead Richard Spencer Tuesday morning and advocating for serious violence.
Politico confirmed his resignation following requests for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation.
“Stop whining about Richard B. Spencer, Nazi, and exercise your rights as decent Americans,” Hirsh wrote in a public Facebook post. “Here are his two addresses.”
The Daily Caller News Foundation redacted the home addresses.
“These posts were clearly outside the bounds of acceptable discourse, and POLITICO editors regard them as a serious lapse of newsroom standards,” Politico Editor-In-Chief John Harris and Editor Carrie Budoff Brown told TheDCNF. “They crossed a line in ways that the publication will not defend, and editors are taking steps to ensure that such a lapse does not occur again.”
While Hirsh’s initial post could have been charitably interpreted to imply advocacy of a non-violent protest outside of Spencer’s home or other similar non-violent actions, a subsequent question and answer clarified Hirsh’s intentions.
“Completely agree we should mobilize against his hateful ideas, but what does knowing his home addresses do?” one Facebook user asked Hirsh. “Send a letter? Confront him in person? Seems like counter-speech is the main thing we can do. You can call it ‘whining’ but I’m not sure that’s fair or constructive. Side note: Apparently the GSA-owned Ronald Reagan International Trade Center in DC felt obligated to host his organization’s event because it can’t discriminate against speech under the First Amendment, so there’s that problem, too.”
Hirsh responded in an unhinged manner: “I wasn’t thinking of a fucking letter, Doug. He lives part of the time next door to me in Arlington. Our grandfathers brought baseball bats to Bund meetings. Want to join me?”
Perhaps knowing it wasn’t such a good idea to advocate openly for serious violence against Spencer in a public format, Hirsh deleted the post, but not before TheDCNF grabbed a screenshot.
Assuming (quite reasonably) that he gets to nominate at least one Supreme Court justice, this is going to be law until either A) The composition of the Supreme Court changes enough that it leans against this law B) Democrats take control of the House in addition to the Senate and Presidency C) Enough House Republicans decide to vote with Democrats to repeal it D) Democrats get control of the Senate and basically attach repealing it to every bill the Senate passes.
Those are listed in order of likelihood in my opinion. The First Amendment Defense Act is probably going to be law for at least 15 to 20 years.
This is the same person who like 30 years ago said if the country needs him to president, he will put his business life on hold, become president and save it. Now the initial portion of that is reality despite every single prediction and "analysis". This is the last person you should be pre-judging or underestimating, he did something extraordinary and I'd wait and see how he does with his 4 years. Even democrats are already getting ready to work with him because he has some ideas for both sides.
So, uh, did you read the stuff I linked? I'm not pre-judging him, I'm judging him by his campaign promises which are still on his site. I'm not underestimating him, I'm expecting him to sign into law a bill that I think is terrible. It will allow stuff like people refusing to sell birth control products without the prospective buyer producing a marriage certificate, as well as any sort of discrimination anyone feels inclined to towards anyone who is LGBTQ. If you don't think he's going to sign this into law, if you think he's going to welch on his campaign promises, than what grounds do you have for presuming [i]anything about what he'll do as president?
On November 23 2016 07:33 biology]major wrote:Abortion --> Liberal thinking: woman's right to choose sometimes even up to third trimester. Conservative thinking: morally ambiguous ethical dilemma, why risk having to make this choice when there are ways to protect yourself in 99.9% of cases with contraceptive use? If you don't have access to contraception and don't want to get pregnant don't have sex. Same thing again, one is about changing the rules and society, the other is about changing yourself.
Quick translation here of the part I bolded. This doesn't effect men at all because they can't get pregnant. Women of sufficient wealth can almost always get birth control (unless everyone in their area is refusing to sell it because of moral reasons). That leaves poor women. So what you just said is "Insufficiently wealthy women don't deserve to have sex with men, regardless of emotions or relationship status, without having to shoulder the risk of getting pregnant and being required by the government to carry that pregnancy to term." Are you still okay with this statement?
Yes, if you are unable to afford birth control, then you have more important things to worry about than casual sex. Your stance is basically, "these women are so poor, let's give them the chance to bail out with abortion when they have casual sex because that would make it fair".
I wasn't aware of his anti LGBTQ stuff, he seems like he doesn't give a shit about that area of politics.
There's two separate issues here on abortion. As far as my stances, I favor leaving the decision of having an abortion or not up to the people involved, because the government trying to legislate a one-size-fits-all solution is going to be an uncomfortable fit for a lot of people. Making abortion illegal also results in women having to carry to term in the cases where birth control fails, which I'm not in favor of. Rather than favoring people who can't afford birth control having abortions, I'd rather see birth control become more accessible, because I don't really think expecting people to just not have sex is a reasonable expectation. More so when those people are in a long term relationship or married. A little more on this in the next paragraph.
As for the "more important things to worry about than casual sex," bit. Some basic stuff that I assume you agree with. Sex feels good. Having consensual sex generally makes people happy. If you're suggesting that poor people just not have sex, you're slowly moving in the direction of "poor people don't get to be happy," or possibly "poor people don't get to do things that make them feel better," or something like that. As quick test, check how you feel about something like a poor person buying a cake with food stamps. It's legal, but if you have a feeling that it's wrong they shouldn't be able to buy that cake, you're definitely leaning towards a "poor people don't get to be happy" position.. That's not really a sustainable position, because there's absolutely no reason for the poor people (who are the single largest demographic if you're dividing the US by wealth) to spend any significant length of time putting up with that sort of expectation from people who are better off then them. I probably shouldn't have to explain in detail [i]why this isn't really sustainable.
As an editorial, my opinion of how liberals and conservatives address this is "let's try to establish a bare minimum level of comfort and happiness through means such as minimum wage and safety net programs such as food stamps" from liberals and "let's tell the poor that poverty and its trappings is a moral failing or the result of one so that the poor believe that they don't deserve to be happy, too, and don't revolt or something else bad for us." That's certainly biased against conservatives, because I don't believe individual moral fiber has a significant influence on whether a person is in poverty compared to how wealthy and educated their parents are.
National editor at Politico Michael Hirsh resigned after publishing the home addresses of alt-right figurehead Richard Spencer Tuesday morning and advocating for serious violence.
Politico confirmed his resignation following requests for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation.
“Stop whining about Richard B. Spencer, Nazi, and exercise your rights as decent Americans,” Hirsh wrote in a public Facebook post. “Here are his two addresses.”
The Daily Caller News Foundation redacted the home addresses.
“These posts were clearly outside the bounds of acceptable discourse, and POLITICO editors regard them as a serious lapse of newsroom standards,” Politico Editor-In-Chief John Harris and Editor Carrie Budoff Brown told TheDCNF. “They crossed a line in ways that the publication will not defend, and editors are taking steps to ensure that such a lapse does not occur again.”
While Hirsh’s initial post could have been charitably interpreted to imply advocacy of a non-violent protest outside of Spencer’s home or other similar non-violent actions, a subsequent question and answer clarified Hirsh’s intentions.
“Completely agree we should mobilize against his hateful ideas, but what does knowing his home addresses do?” one Facebook user asked Hirsh. “Send a letter? Confront him in person? Seems like counter-speech is the main thing we can do. You can call it ‘whining’ but I’m not sure that’s fair or constructive. Side note: Apparently the GSA-owned Ronald Reagan International Trade Center in DC felt obligated to host his organization’s event because it can’t discriminate against speech under the First Amendment, so there’s that problem, too.”
Hirsh responded in an unhinged manner: “I wasn’t thinking of a fucking letter, Doug. He lives part of the time next door to me in Arlington. Our grandfathers brought baseball bats to Bund meetings. Want to join me?”
Perhaps knowing it wasn’t such a good idea to advocate openly for serious violence against Spencer in a public format, Hirsh deleted the post, but not before TheDCNF grabbed a screenshot.
What a waste to lose your job over. Spencer's alt-right movement was dead in the water the moment he had his little Nazi propaganda gathering. No one respectable is gonna touch him with a 10 foot pole. He can fade back into obscurity where he belongs.
I see a rise of authoritarians on the left and on the right, and it as very disconcerting. Hirsch is just as much the authoritarian as the alt right he fears, and there is no defending what he wrote.
Whatever the smoke and mirrors that are created in the course of a campaign may make people believe, I lived with this man day and night for a year and a half, and I have no doubt that my assessment of his character is accurate. And there unfortunately isn't virtually anybody else who's had as close of a relationship with Donald Trump, and didn't sign a non-disclosure agreement.
On November 23 2016 12:53 Sermokala wrote: I wouldn't have guessed it would have happened so soon but nazies would have been my bet for what iradiates the alter right movement.
The white nationalist components of the Alt-Right were always too closely tied to the Nazis for them to become anything resembling mainstream (many of them flaunt their admiration of Hitler and the Nazis). Americans are simply too conditioned reject anything even resembling a Nazi.
On November 23 2016 12:53 Sermokala wrote: I wouldn't have guessed it would have happened so soon but nazies would have been my bet for what iradiates the alter right movement.
The white nationalist components of the Alt-Right were always too closely tied to the Nazis for them to become anything resembling mainstream (many of them flaunt their admiration of Hitler and the Nazis). Americans are simply too conditioned reject anything even resembling a Nazi.
Hilariously something the nazies have in common with socialists.
On November 23 2016 10:55 RealityIsKing wrote: Look there are problems with the right and there are problems with the left and they all need to be fixed.
The left have a very apparent problem in that they cultivate professional victims utilizing movements such as your BLM (those people needs to pay attention on how Koreans protest through peaceful means) and/or your third wave man-hating/gender dividing feminism (which is the dominant concept of feminism right now).
Right now the ruling party is the right so we have the power to focus on getting rid of the professional victimhood industry.
Simple as that.
I agree that there's a problem with victim mentality in some versions of some significant movements of the left. I'd note that there's also a few of them on the right.
though I think you're overstating the issues with third wave feminism. most of it isn't man-hating. there are considerable issues with it. I'd be interested in your response to reading the wiki on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism
First of all, Wikipedia's social issue pages are astroturfed by professional victims so there the flag.
#MaleTears, #KillAllMen were all pushed by the current generation of feminism.
You can't convince people that it isn't about hating man.
Using fake statistics that women gets paid 79% of what a man makes by doing the same hr and job to guilt males into donating to their cause is certainly not beneficial.
When both parties get drunk and the female can just lie and say that she got sexual assaulted and the male's life is permanently ruined is certainly not about gender equality either.
So many issues with the current education system when they teach about feminism, flaming the war between genders.
"First of all, Wikipedia's social issue pages are astroturfed by professional victims so there the flag." could you clarify that? You're either using terms in ways I haven't seen or autocorrect hates you.
and just because ther eare some bad eggs in 3rd wave feminism doesn't mean the entire movement or even most of it is that way. you always hear about the extremes, not the work done by the reasonable folk.
Astroturf in the context of wikipedia means that it is being heavily edited to favor the said topic and downplay its flaws and bad news.
Third wave feminism spews the 79% pay myth and the 1 in 4 women get raped is not beneficial at all and those two are pretty much their main points around college campuses and through social media platforms.
Another disgusting thing they do is their attempt to demonize MRAs when they claim to be about "gender equality".
The 1 in 4 woman rape anywhere in the U.S. is such a ridiculous claim that requires a mind bending level of cognitive dissonance to believe.
Quick Google on the 1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted claim, here's the more accurate statement.
Approximately 1 in 4 of 19% of a Non-Representative Sample of Women Who Responded to a Non-Representative Survey of 27 Colleges (Out of Roughly 5,000) Reported Experiencing Sexual Assault, Where “Sexual Assault” is Taken to Mean Anything from Being on the Receiving End of an Unsolicited Kiss to Forcible Penetration at Gunpoint, Regardless of the Particular Context
My favourite John Oliver piece was on people cherry-picking the studies and the statistics from the studies that support their beliefs, instead of readjusting their beliefs in light of the studies.
On November 23 2016 10:55 RealityIsKing wrote: Look there are problems with the right and there are problems with the left and they all need to be fixed.
The left have a very apparent problem in that they cultivate professional victims utilizing movements such as your BLM (those people needs to pay attention on how Koreans protest through peaceful means) and/or your third wave man-hating/gender dividing feminism (which is the dominant concept of feminism right now).
Right now the ruling party is the right so we have the power to focus on getting rid of the professional victimhood industry.
Simple as that.
I agree that there's a problem with victim mentality in some versions of some significant movements of the left. I'd note that there's also a few of them on the right.
though I think you're overstating the issues with third wave feminism. most of it isn't man-hating. there are considerable issues with it. I'd be interested in your response to reading the wiki on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism
First of all, Wikipedia's social issue pages are astroturfed by professional victims so there the flag.
#MaleTears, #KillAllMen were all pushed by the current generation of feminism.
You can't convince people that it isn't about hating man.
Using fake statistics that women gets paid 79% of what a man makes by doing the same hr and job to guilt males into donating to their cause is certainly not beneficial.
When both parties get drunk and the female can just lie and say that she got sexual assaulted and the male's life is permanently ruined is certainly not about gender equality either.
So many issues with the current education system when they teach about feminism, flaming the war between genders.
"First of all, Wikipedia's social issue pages are astroturfed by professional victims so there the flag." could you clarify that? You're either using terms in ways I haven't seen or autocorrect hates you.
and just because ther eare some bad eggs in 3rd wave feminism doesn't mean the entire movement or even most of it is that way. you always hear about the extremes, not the work done by the reasonable folk.
Astroturf in the context of wikipedia means that it is being heavily edited to favor the said topic and downplay its flaws and bad news.
Third wave feminism spews the 79% pay myth and the 1 in 4 women get raped is not beneficial at all and those two are pretty much their main points around college campuses and through social media platforms.
Another disgusting thing they do is their attempt to demonize MRAs when they claim to be about "gender equality".
The 1 in 4 woman rape anywhere in the U.S. is such a ridiculous claim that requires a mind bending level of cognitive dissonance to believe.
Quick Google on the 1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted claim, here's the more accurate statement.
Approximately 1 in 4 of 19% of a Non-Representative Sample of Women Who Responded to a Non-Representative Survey of 27 Colleges (Out of Roughly 5,000) Reported Experiencing Sexual Assault, Where “Sexual Assault” is Taken to Mean Anything from Being on the Receiving End of an Unsolicited Kiss to Forcible Penetration at Gunpoint, Regardless of the Particular Context
My favourite John Oliver piece was on people cherry-picking the studies and the statistics from the studies that support their beliefs, instead of readjusting their beliefs in light of the studies.
That stat has actually been replicated in several studies in a couple different western countries with larger sample sizes
There are many issues with the study design and data to raise doubts, but it's not some conclusively debunked study like the one linking vaccines to autism. That's just a mindset pushed by insecure men to discredit feminism as a whole.
When I was in college, there was a big sign outside the women's building that said: "If she was drunk, it was rape", as simply as that. So if we were both drunk, I raped her? Congratulations, you just lowered women to such a remarkably low bar that they are incapable of making decisions.
Edit: Should have been more clear. Whenever I hear about the 1 in 5 thing, I can't help but wonder how they are defining it. I have heard this idea that an intoxicated woman is raped whenever she has sex, even if the guy is drunk too, supported too many times.
A 21-year-old woman was severely injured and may lose her arm after being hit by a projectile when North Dakota law enforcement officers turned a water cannon on Dakota Access pipeline protesters and threw “less-than-lethal” weapons, according to the woman’s father.
Sophia Wilansky was one of several hundred protesters injured during the standoff with police on Sunday on a bridge near the site where the pipeline is planned to cross under the Missouri river.
Graphic photographs of her injured arm with broken bones visible were circulated on social media.
“The best-case scenario is no pain and 10-20% functionality,” said Wayne Wilansky, Sophia’s father, who travelled to Minneapolis where his daughter underwent eight hours of surgery on Monday. He said his daughter had been hit by a concussion grenade thrown by a police officer and that the arteries, median nerve, muscle and bone in her left arm had been “blown away”.
Sophia will require additional surgery in the next few days and her arm may still have to be amputated, he added. “She’s devastated. She looks at her arm and she cries,” he said.
Sophia Wilansky is one of thousands of activists who have travelled to the Standing Rock Sioux reservation in North Dakota to attempt to halt the construction of the pipeline. Members of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe established a “spiritual camp” on the banks of the Missouri in April. The tribe fears the pipeline will jeopardise their water supply and say that construction has disturbed sacred burial grounds.
The activists, who call themselves “water protectors”, have faced a heavily militarised police force. More than 400 protesters have been arrested by law enforcement officers who have deployed pepper spray, teargas, rubber bullets, Tasers, sound weapons and other “less-than-lethal” methods.
Following Sunday’s confrontation 26 protesters were taken to hospital and more than 300 injured, according to the Standing Rock Medic & Healer Council. Most of the injured had hypothermia after being hit by a water cannon in below-freezing weather.
The authorities should just clear everyone out. That stupid protest has gone on long enough.
If you legitimately mean everyone, including the companies, then yes I totally agree.
If not, it's just a pretty despicable thing to say.
Of course they've been trying to "clear everyone out" (meaning the water protectors), but it's not working. They've already sicked dogs on people, shot them with rubber bullets, thrown rubber bullet grenades at them, tear gas, people have been maimed, hosed into hypothermia,and sonic weapons. So "clear them out" is basically a call to have them killed, if not, it's for shutting down the construction, and I have a hard time thinking he's calling for them to stop the project.
The idea of Tom Perez as chairman of the DNC is growing on me. He's a great secretary of labor, has a fantastic pro-labor record, he's shrewd and competent, and in my opinion the DNC chairmanship needs to be a full-time job rather than a side occupation of a member of Congress.
On November 23 2016 10:55 RealityIsKing wrote: Look there are problems with the right and there are problems with the left and they all need to be fixed.
The left have a very apparent problem in that they cultivate professional victims utilizing movements such as your BLM (those people needs to pay attention on how Koreans protest through peaceful means) and/or your third wave man-hating/gender dividing feminism (which is the dominant concept of feminism right now).
Right now the ruling party is the right so we have the power to focus on getting rid of the professional victimhood industry.
Simple as that.
I agree that there's a problem with victim mentality in some versions of some significant movements of the left. I'd note that there's also a few of them on the right.
though I think you're overstating the issues with third wave feminism. most of it isn't man-hating. there are considerable issues with it. I'd be interested in your response to reading the wiki on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism
First of all, Wikipedia's social issue pages are astroturfed by professional victims so there the flag.
#MaleTears, #KillAllMen were all pushed by the current generation of feminism.
You can't convince people that it isn't about hating man.
Using fake statistics that women gets paid 79% of what a man makes by doing the same hr and job to guilt males into donating to their cause is certainly not beneficial.
When both parties get drunk and the female can just lie and say that she got sexual assaulted and the male's life is permanently ruined is certainly not about gender equality either.
So many issues with the current education system when they teach about feminism, flaming the war between genders.
"First of all, Wikipedia's social issue pages are astroturfed by professional victims so there the flag." could you clarify that? You're either using terms in ways I haven't seen or autocorrect hates you.
and just because ther eare some bad eggs in 3rd wave feminism doesn't mean the entire movement or even most of it is that way. you always hear about the extremes, not the work done by the reasonable folk.
Astroturf in the context of wikipedia means that it is being heavily edited to favor the said topic and downplay its flaws and bad news.
Third wave feminism spews the 79% pay myth and the 1 in 4 women get raped is not beneficial at all and those two are pretty much their main points around college campuses and through social media platforms.
Another disgusting thing they do is their attempt to demonize MRAs when they claim to be about "gender equality".
The 1 in 4 woman rape anywhere in the U.S. is such a ridiculous claim that requires a mind bending level of cognitive dissonance to believe.
Quick Google on the 1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted claim, here's the more accurate statement.
Approximately 1 in 4 of 19% of a Non-Representative Sample of Women Who Responded to a Non-Representative Survey of 27 Colleges (Out of Roughly 5,000) Reported Experiencing Sexual Assault, Where “Sexual Assault” is Taken to Mean Anything from Being on the Receiving End of an Unsolicited Kiss to Forcible Penetration at Gunpoint, Regardless of the Particular Context
My favourite John Oliver piece was on people cherry-picking the studies and the statistics from the studies that support their beliefs, instead of readjusting their beliefs in light of the studies.
That stat has actually been replicated in several studies in a couple different western countries with larger sample sizes
There are many issues with the study design and data to raise doubts, but it's not some conclusively debunked study like the one linking vaccines to autism. That's just a mindset pushed by insecure men to discredit feminism as a whole.
Dug a little more, you're right, there's probably more studies where 1 in 5 might be more realistic
The number comes from the 2011 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, which was released in September 2014 by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The survey was based on landline and cellphone interviews with more than 12,000 people who were 18 years or older, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The survey’s summary table shows that 19.3 percent of women interviewed reported experiences that the authors categorized as rape or attempted rape. That’s "nearly one in five," so on the broad figure Obama cited, he correctly reported the CDC’s finding.
...
A well-respected survey by the CDC found that 19.3 percent of women reported experiences that are considered to be rape or attempted rape under the survey’s guidelines. There are other surveys, using a different methodology, that show lower rates of rape, but researchers say the data in the CDC study is at least as credible, if not more so. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.
However, you can’t just add up all three subcategories -- you’d get 27.2 percent, which is significantly higher than the survey’s overall rate for rape of 19.3 percent.
CDC explained that the subcategories are derived from the overall rape estimate, and they overlap. Within each estimate, victims are counted only once, but due to the possibility of re-victimization, the same respondent may be represented in multiple categories, CDC spokeswoman Courtney Lenard said.
But regardless, any non-zero number is already way too high, so complaining that feminists are embellishing the numbers misses the point they're making. I understand feeling oppressed when people use unconvincing statistics, but not sure how angry you should really be about that in the grand scheme of things.
On November 23 2016 13:30 Mohdoo wrote: When I was in college, there was a big sign outside the women's building that said: "If she was drunk, it was rape", as simply as that. So if we were both drunk, I raped her? Congratulations, you just lowered women to such a remarkably low bar that they are incapable of making decisions.
Edit: Should have been more clear. Whenever I hear about the 1 in 5 thing, I can't help but wonder how they are defining it. I have heard this idea that an intoxicated woman is raped whenever she has sex, even if the guy is drunk too, supported too many times.
Well I don't know the legal lingo, but is sexual assault related to the assault part of assault and battery? That is assault is the verbal part and battery is the physical contact part? Because that would suddenly make the 1 in 5 stat quite a bit more viable considering the number of verbal things certain males hurl at pretty women.
On November 23 2016 14:19 kwizach wrote: The idea of Tom Perez as chairman of the DNC is growing on me. He's a great secretary of labor, has a fantastic pro-labor record, he's shrewd and competent, and in my opinion the DNC chairmanship needs to be a full-time job rather than a side occupation of a member of Congress.
I don't know Perez well enough to comment. But I do think the DNC needs a zero budge policy on campaign finance, healthcare and social security. We need a Bernie perspective in the DNC because people vote with their hearts. We gotta play the populism game.
EPT
