Recent posts

#1

Laid Back Lounge / Re: What's on your mind today?

Last post by Recusant - Today at 03:47:18 PM

I find the idea that the Supreme Court would ban contraception ridiculously paranoid. Even the most conservative spokesmen on social media (like Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro) think that if you don't want to get pregnant then you should use contraceptives.

The US Supreme Court needn't ban contraception, and likely will not. As we see with abortion, all it needs to do is withdraw federal protection of the right to access to contraception and leave it to the regressive governments in states to ban it. Justice Thomas specifically referred to the ruling that recognized the right of access to contraceptives as one that the Christian zealot right wing justices would want to "reconsider."

#2

Politics / Re: US Supreme Court Leans Tow...

Last post by Recusant - Today at 03:32:42 PM

If convenient, simply lie. All is forgiven when it's for the greater glory of the Christian god.

"Gorsuch Blasted After Photos Expose His Claims in High School Coach Praying Case Are a 'Flat Out, Knowing Lie'" | New Civil Rights Movement

Many people from legal experts to court watchers to journalists to ordinary Americans on social media are criticizing Justice Neil Gorsuch for his majority opinion in a decision siding with a former high school football coach. That coach sued after the school district ordered him to stop praying after every game at the 50-yard line. Justice Gorsuch's opinion, as many are noticing, appears to be based on facts that are false. Several are accusing Gorsuch of just plain lying.

Justice Gorsuch claimed the coach's First Amendment rights were violated, and that he was merely engaging in "quiet personal prayer" as he knelt.

Gorsuch uses the word "quiet" 14 times, as The Washington Post's Paul Waldman notes.

"Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a high school football coach because he knelt at midfield after games to offer a quiet prayer of thanks," Justice Gorsuch writes as he begins his majority opinion. "Mr. Kennedy prayed during a period when school employees were free to speak with a friend, call for a reservation at a restaurant, check email, or attend to other personal matters. He offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied. Still, the Bremerton School District disciplined him anyway. It did so because it thought anything less could lead a reasonable observer to conclude (mistakenly) that it endorsed Mr. Kennedy's religious beliefs. That reasoning was misguided."

"The contested exercise here does not involve leading prayers with the team," Gorsuch continues (despite photos that appear to suggest otherwise), "the District disciplined Mr. Kennedy only for his decision to persist in praying quietly without his students after three games in October 2015."

These are the photos of Coach Kennedy that Justice Sonia Sotomayor included in her dissent:











[Continues . . .]

#3

Laid Back Lounge / Re: What's on your mind today?

Last post by Asmodean - Today at 03:09:05 PM

The problem is that the right is specifically going after IUDs next, as they think that they cause abortions. I have an IUD, it's been the best option for me not just as a contraceptive but also helps me deal with debilitating endometriosis and a host of other fun hormonal ailments. It would be devastating if I lost access to that and being in a red state, it's a likely possibility.

Is it not an option to hop on something with wheels and go to a state where you can have the procedure?

Or can states within the same federation refuse their residents to partake in activities, legal where they are, if said activities are illegal where they live?

Law-related curiosity out of the way, we do find motivation and inspiration in the weirdest things, don't we..? However it came about, I wish you the best of luck on your quest.

#4

Laid Back Lounge / Re: What's on your mind today?

Last post by Buddy - Today at 02:44:23 PM

I find the idea that the Supreme Court would ban contraception ridiculously paranoid. Even the most conservative spokesmen on social media (like Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro) think that if you don't want to get pregnant then you should use contraceptives.

The problem is that the right is specifically going after IUDs next, as they think that they cause abortions. I have an IUD, it's been the best option for me not just as a contraceptive but also helps me deal with debilitating endometriosis and a host of other fun hormonal ailments. It would be devastating if I lost access to that and being in a red state, it's a likely possibility.

I'll admit I've been trying for years to get sterilization done and this is has been a big motivator for me to actually push to find a doctor who would do it.

#5

Laid Back Lounge / Re: What's on your mind today?

Last post by Asmodean - Today at 02:35:10 PM

Kudos to you on having just completed Atlas Shrugged. This "bold" uber-libertarian philosophy is noticeably absent from your description of your views on access to abortion and contraception. There you're all for the community stepping in and everyone getting a say about the individual's choice.

[EDIT] What I should have pointed out, I suppose, is that I make a distinction between your problem, and one that involves someone else unconsenting or in opposition. I am the epitome of liberal when it comes to things that only involve your own sweet self and/or any consenting and capable of consent party you're doing whatever with.  Pregnancy takes more than a woman to achieve (unless parthenogenesis in humans is a thing, but even then, more than likely a very special case to be dealt with as such) and involves a new human life, which is incapable of claiming its own. If "I" grant that life certain rights, "I" don't owe it anything beyond what "I" have committed to. It will still have its hill to climb - or not. And a steep one at that, probably.[EDIT: /end edit]

My philosophy is neither bold nor libertarian, in the sense that it was not modelled on an existing political or philosophical doctrine - it's mine, and, if nothing else, it is internally consistent.

"The world owes you nothing" is one thought. "The world will prevent you from doing X if it can" is another.

To use my above example, a given community may well be a club of people with similar goals and ideals. People, however, are not a club nor a monolith. They are individuals, looking out for their individual interests. Often at the cost of the interests of others. That's the world, and I make no apologies for it.

So, if "I" had to climb the steep abortion hill to dislodge "you," then "you" too can climb harder to then dislodge "me." I'll even commit to honouring the game - as long as it is within my interests to do so (As a member of the society, that's ad-perpetuum, or unless there is a civil war or some such - this particular one was a rhetorical point rather than a practical one)

#6

Laid Back Lounge / Re: What's on your mind today?

Last post by Anne D. - Today at 02:14:17 PM

I'll be rather blunt in laying out my philosophy, . . .

To me, it's not a matter of tantrums or fairness. In fact, it's rather a cold and calculated affair. I'm out for number one. I have my ambitions and move towards them, making every necessary (and some unnecessary) sacrifice I deem acceptable to achieve that goal. I expect you to be, too. Regardless of who you are. I don't expect you to pave my road for me - and I will not pave yours for you. Unless you are my kid, or someone I have a personal interest in. Then, I might try.

. . .

The point is, the accomplishments of those who came before you may get you into the room with me, but from there - it's all on you. I expect the same in return.

Are you the most intersectional victim on the planet, but want to be taken seriously as a C-level executive? It won't take more to convince me than you being more effective at it than the current C-person, and if your hill is steeper than his - well, climb it like he climbs his, like I climb mine, like those with less steep hills than that climb theirs. Climb, or settle for less. That is on you. The world - and yes, the huwhite heterosexual patriarchy - owes you nothing. So if you want what someone has, climb as high as they are - then higher. Then, you may just dislodge them, whoever they are - yes, even a heterosexual white man.

You may need to burn bridges to get there - burn family and friends, even, but then, you having to make difficult choices for your ambition is not the world's problem any more than me making difficult choices for mine is.

Kudos to you on having just completed Atlas Shrugged. This "bold" uber-libertarian philosophy is noticeably absent from your description of your views on access to abortion and contraception. There you're all for the community stepping in and everyone getting a say about the individual's choice.

[Asmo]

#7

Laid Back Lounge / Re: What's on your mind today?

Last post by Asmodean - Today at 01:07:30 PM

Asmo also asked:
"What is a woman?"
Um...XX?

What is a man?
XY?

Yes?



Looks like we're all
"Alphabet people"
XX, XY, LGBTQIA+.

Oh, The Asmojito is not only refreshingly good to drink, but also can answer His own question clearly and directly. You are not far off the mark, but what you describe is biological male/female. There is more to being a man or a woman, although not that much more. Still, every component is necessary.

A woman is an adult human female. I have no problem expanding that to include adult human males who mimic (transition to/identify/pass for) female on a case-by-case basis. A man is an adult human male. On a case by case basis, just as before, he could also be an adult human female mimicking being male.

If I and my comrades had had to fight for over half a century--enduring beatings, murder, and loss of livelihoods and reputations--to get the right to simply live openly as gay, be intimate with my partner, and marry that partner if I want, I'd be damn proud too.

Certainly, though it sounds like a American thing. My rant was directed at my own neck of the woods, where "nobody" has really given a shit since before I was born. Oh, sure, you get bullied for being gay as a kid - but then, you also do for wearing glasses or having braces or anything else that sets you apart from the flock. Now, being a near-sighted homosexual kid with crooked teeth... Yeah. There are easier lives. So when you make it into adulthood and succeed by whatever measure you apply, then yes, totally celebrate yourself. Then, you have accomplished something.

When it comes to marriage, I'm not sure how forcing religious institutions to go against their teachings just so a gay couple can disgust their imaginary friend is something to celebrate, but then again, I'm not into the whole marriage thing and happy to leave it to those who believe in contracts with gods. Although, if you do and happen to be gay, are you then not all sorts of sinner? Why would you then even want to make an oath of sin, so to speak? Again, this is just a bit of mental diarrhoea. Personally, I think if two adults want to make living together a official thing, they can find whatever government official meddles with such in their area and sign a bloody contract. Have a big party after, complete with virginity veils on non-virgins and a Jesus-shaped cake, if that's your fancy.

I must have missed the history lesson where the heterosexual males had to do that. The pride is about the hard-won right to be openly who you are, not about having "pride in the ways consenting adults rub their genitals against other consenting adults in a private setting" as you so dismissively put it.

"Being openly who you are" is not a right, for starters. It is a combination of specific privileges.

That said though, who you have sex with is a private matter - unless you rape someone or get raped, and/or one of the parties is incapable of consent.

I wouldn't mind Pride at all if it was a dignified affair of people celebrating their ability to be gay and not have to pay for it - well, unless the right follower of the right religion happens upon the right bar at the wrong moment. There is more to it though, is there not? People of varying degrees of public nudity making sexual displays en masse - heck, even little kids twerking in the streets. How is that not about rubbing genitals together, rather than being able to be open about the sex of the person you do it with?

As for this: "Fathers and children get nothing. Straight people - fuck them. All they are good for is having kids who will one day pay my pension.":  We've had centuries upon centuries of revelry in heterosexuality, the patriarchy, and the patriarchal family.

Natural enough, given that for most of human history, strength was a strength, and males tend to have more.

Every day has been heterosexual white male day for centuries.

No. Individuals tend to celebrate their individual accomplishments - or lie about sexual conquests. There has not been a heterosexual huwhite male day where I am like... Ever, to the best of what I can find.

It's interesting that, in this comparatively tiny slice of time, meaning the last few decades, whenever nonwhite males try to take their seat at the table, some very sensitive white males have a tantrum. "It's just not fair."

Well, the Huwhite business is certainly new, at least where I'm at, since there were practically no non-white people here until mid-last century.

I'll be rather blunt in laying out my philosophy, so it's worth mentioning that my use of the word "you" is impersonal. Don't read it as an attack on you-you. It is not.

To me, it's not a matter of tantrums or fairness. In fact, it's rather a cold and calculated affair. I'm out for number one. I have my ambitions and move towards them, making every necessary (and some unnecessary) sacrifice I deem acceptable to achieve that goal. I expect you to be, too. Regardless of who you are. I don't expect you to pave my road for me - and I will not pave yours for you. Unless you are my kid, or someone I have a personal interest in. Then, I might try.

That said, I don't care who's at my table, provided that they earn their seat. And by that, I don't necessarily mean "earn the right to sit down," but also "earn the right to remain seated." If it's my table - then they have to earn it with me.

The point is, the accomplishments of those who came before you may get you into the room with me, but from there - it's all on you. I expect the same in return.

Are you the most intersectional victim on the planet, but want to be taken seriously as a C-level executive? It won't take more to convince me than you being more effective at it than the current C-person, and if your hill is steeper than his - well, climb it like he climbs his, like I climb mine, like those with less steep hills than that climb theirs. Climb, or settle for less. That is on you. The world - and yes, the huwhite heterosexual patriarchy - owes you nothing. So if you want what someone has, climb as high as they are - then higher. Then, you may just dislodge them, whoever they are - yes, even a heterosexual white man.

You may need to burn bridges to get there - burn family and friends, even, but then, you having to make difficult choices for your ambition is not the world's problem any more than me making difficult choices for mine is.

There are clubs of straight, white men, but straight, white men are not a club. It works for them as it does for everyone else. Some end up junkies giving blowjobs for heroin. Others end up at the top of the world. Others still tumble from those great heights into the aforementioned great lows. Most end up somewhere in-between. some are even satisfied with that.

[Asmo-jito]

#8

Laid Back Lounge / Re: What's on your mind today?

Last post by Magdalena - Today at 06:36:12 AM

I used to think like Asmo-jito:

I never understood the need to celebrate or have pride in the ways consenting adults rub their genitals against other consenting adults in a private setting,
...

...
And one day, I found out that "pride" stands for:
Personal Rights in Defense and Education (PRIDE).
 

Personal Rights in Defense and Education (PRIDE)
was a gay political organization. Established in 1966 as a radical gay political organization that from its origination set a new tone for gay political groups like the Gay Liberation Front (GLF), ACT UP, and the Radical Faeries.[1][2] PRIDE led aggressive, unapologetic, demonstrations against the oppression by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) of gay gatherings or same-sex meetings in the city of Los Angeles.[3][4] PRIDE's monthly single-page newsletter evolved into The Advocate, the nation's longest-running gay news publication.[2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Rights_in_Defense_and_Education

So, it's not about butthole pride, or pride in rubbing genitals against other consenting adults, it never was...PRIDE was basically to raise awareness of their struggles.

Like some movement styles, peaceful and/or violent, this one, ended:

...In late 1968 PRIDE under tremendous pressure from all sides (gay and straight) to cease its aggressive radical approach and activities[16] was dissolved by its founders.[16]

...Or maybe it just transformed.


Asmo also asked:
"What is a woman?"
Um...XX?

What is a man?
XY?

Yes?



Looks like we're all
"Alphabet people"
XX, XY, LGBTQIA+.

#9

Laid Back Lounge / Re: What's on your mind today?

Last post by Tom62 - Today at 05:41:06 AM

I find the idea that the Supreme Court would ban contraception ridiculously paranoid. Even the most conservative spokesmen on social media (like Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro) think that if you don't want to get pregnant then you should use contraceptives.

#10

Laid Back Lounge / Re: What's on your mind today?

Last post by Firebird - Today at 03:06:59 AM

If I and my comrades had had to fight for over half a century--enduring beatings, murder, and loss of livelihoods and reputations--to get the right to simply live openly as gay, be intimate with my partner, and marry that partner if I want, I'd be damn proud too. I must have missed the history lesson where the heterosexual males had to do that. The pride is about the hard-won right to be openly who you are, not about having "pride in the ways consenting adults rub their genitals against other consenting adults in a private setting" as you so dismissively put it.

Agreed. And I say that as a straight white guy.
The only people who need to celebrate who I rub my genitals against are the ones directly involved.