agent_flounder @ agent_flounder @lemmy.one

Posts

0

Comments

749

Joined

2 yr. ago

no inherent contradiction between opposing abortion and believing that current levels of government support for parents are too high.

Apparently they are unaware of how high the infant mortality rate is in the US vs elsewhere.. They're unaware how high maternal mortality rates in the US are vs other countries.

Because I'm sure if they knew these facts, which were true before Roe v Wade was overturned and women had access to abortion and other options, these "pro-life" folks would certainly be concerned about the life of mother and child and take action to ensure adequate pre- and post-natal support for both.

Surely they were merely ignorant of these facts (that I found in two minutes) and just didn't think to check for any of this before yanking this support, right? They must instinctively know how much is too much. I'm sure it's not because they think only certain people deserve support by way of affording it. Because, gosh, that* would be truly ghastly. And they're nothing if not moral and upstanding protectors of all life equally, right?

I mean why would they even consider death rates anyway. Who could ever foresee that less support could cause health problems including death? Surely only God himself could've anticipated such a thing.

Exactly.

They're regressive reactionaries. They're reacting to the sexual revolution where women were freed from controlling patriarchal social mores around sex and relationships.

Before The Pill and Roe v Wade, women and their relationships and choice of partners was controlled by men or at least the patriarchy. Fathers guarded women's chastity, peers and society at large enforced social mores with threat of shame, rejection, and ostracism.

The regressives want that all back. Sanctity of life is what many anti-abortionists claim. But you often see anti-abortionists talk about abortion in terms of (their idea of) sexual morality of women and they talk about pregnancy like it is some kind of "pUnIshMeNT fOr SiNniNg". With the double-standard assumed, of course, because of their misogynistic worldview.

Because the rabid right has been on a campaign for the last 50+ years to regain control and regress the country to a time before the civil rights era and before Roe v Wade. They've followed a multi-pronged attack strategy. They spread propaganda via right wing AM talk radio and then Fox News, and so on. They sidled up to the Christian right wing. They have fought against school funding and fought against teaching science and have dictated a conservative biased curriculum (TX). They have groomed judges and justices and influenced their appointment. They attacked the middle class and funneled that wealth to the ultra rich. They instituted voter suppression and outrageous gerrymandering. And on and on.

Half a century of that and the rest of us are fighting for our democracy and our lives against the rise of the extremist right wing (aka fascism).

I hope you're right because if they remain united, we are deeply fucked.

At least you can admit you were wrong and change your mind. Those abilities are all too rare.

Someone who owns a podium company through a maze of shell corporations or someone who has money that needs laundering?

Money laundering or other fuckery.

Found this Newsweek article just now:

https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-secret-police-sparks-fight-democrats-1831481

No. Just no.

And get off my lawn, ya whippersnapper.

The BBC has now uncovered allegations that the fashion mogul exploited young adult men for sex at events he hosted in his New York residences and luxurious hotels around the world, including in London, Paris, Venice, and Marrakesh.

As part of a two-year investigation, the BBC has spoken to 12 men who described attending or organising events involving sex acts run for Mr Jeffries, 79, and his British partner Mr Smith, 60, between 2009 and 2015.

The article then goes into disturbing detail.

But others dismissed the reality of far-right violence by falsely claiming members of the neo-Nazi group were actually federal agents. That included Musk, who amplified the false conspiracy that Brody was the man in the mask, then later suggested Brody was part of a “false flag situation,” in a post on X ― previously called Twitter ― that remains up today.

I think it will get worse and worse until.... well I don't know what will turn it around or when.

If you have any statistics to provide I would love to see them.

Meanwhile, yes Grizzlies can be extremely dangerous on the rare occasion they attack. How dangerous they are doesn't change the odds of being attacked. It just means you're more likely fucked if one does attack you. It's ok to be scared shitless of them. I am. But don't let the fear taint your reasoning.

Here are some more statistics. Hopefully folks can set aside their fear for a moment and analyze the risk with a level head. Keep in mind the number of visitors to wild areas is quite large.

• There were 183 bear attacks in North America between 2000–2015.
• There are 40 bear attacks around the world every year.
• The odds of being attacked by a bear are one in 2.1 million.
• On average, 24 deaths were caused by grizzly bears between 2000–2015.
• There were six fatal bear attacks in Alaska from 2008–2018.
• There were 22 human-bear incidents in the US Yosemite National Park in 2019.

https://petpedia.co/bear-attack-statistics/

Oh and by the way if you think national parks are just zoos, please by all means go tell that up close to the free roaming wild moose and bears in Yellowstone or Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park, especially during the rut, and see how that works out for ya.

Being in the backcountry where you don't have as much wildlife management might be riskier. Although I would love to see statistics because many factors could play in. Bears being habituated to human presence and especially food is a major issue that increases bear encounters. So it's possible that backcountry encounters are rarer than in heavily visited parks.

Sounds like something a bigot would say.

A fish rots from the head. Corporate culture all flows from the CEO and board. If a bigoted piece of shit is in charge, this is what you get. Because the top of the company sets and enforces policy. So if they don't care about bigotry or if they are bigoted themselves, they won't set or enforce policies to stop it. They will hire bigoted management. Those bigots won't stop it and probably encourage it. They hire bigoted workers who will persecute others and face no consequences. Those who anti-bigots can report but will be ignored or face retaliation.

First of all, the Overton Window in America is skewed heavily right. So our centrist Democratic leaders are center right, our Republicans are what most countries would call regressive, extremist, authoritarian right wing, or even fascists.

See, the problem is rightwing extremism has been on a campaign since the civil rights era to take control of the country and undo the progress made since the 1960s.

They installed right wing media. They cut education and tampered with curricula. They gerrymandered. They instituted voter suppression. Their strategy culminated in the Federalist Society influencing the selection of Gorsuch and installation of right wing judges during the Trump administration.

The thing you have to know if you ever want to try and stop extremist, authoritarian, right wing regressives is that they do not hold the same ideals and morals as you and I. They do not play from the same playbook or follow the same rulebook.

They believe that "might makes right," that any ends justify the means, that rules are enacted to protect them and their in group and punish their selected out group. They believe in many cases that their cause is justified by God.

And so any justice who adheres to such zealous principles will see no issue with finding a way to rule in the favor of their side. They may even go so far as to rule with weak or minimal justification. They will be a lot less likely to rule in an unbiased fashion.

My current opinion is that, so far, we have only seen rulings that fall into the "finding a way" category.

I think these justices will incrementally push the envelope on what they can get away with over the upcoming decades.

The clinical dose is a lot lower than the recreational dose, is my understanding.

And studies show people are just as productive putting in 30h as they are 40. So let's do that. And people will have more free time and be able to focus more on the work at hand.

And make this spyware illegal.

I tape over my webcam when not in use. I wished I could run my own hardware and OS.

Right? If I get my work done on time and put out high quality work and my workload is comparable to others, then that's all the corp needs to know.

If I'm performing poorly, ok, sure investigate. Otherwise fuck off with this babysitter spyware. It's insulting.

Ok, but how likely is a grizzly attack?

According to the US Natl Park Service it is 1 in 2.1 million. Dying from a bee sting is more likely.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/150916-bears-attacks-animals-science-north-america-grizzlies