5-27-22 12:24 •
Who Should Riot
Anon5: So this is what they are teaching in school these days - that the Black Lives Matter riots were justified!
Missy: When peaceful rallies and protests don't work, sometimes you have to fuck shit up to get their attention.
Anon5: But does it make you any better when you’re hurting innocent people to get the attention you want?
Missy: Peaceful marches were organized. The organizers were blacklisted out of careers, called vile names and viciously demonized.
Peaceful protests were attempted. The police attacked them.
We have a police force that is so heavily protected that they can kill or assault restrained and unarmed people (on camera no less) and walk away without any repercussions. Who cares if some stores get trashed? That's whats insurance is for. I fully support protesting by any means necessary to get the point across, even if it means methods most would find disagreeable. It's long over due. People are done playing nice.
Anon5: "Who cares if some stores get trashed?" Maybe the owners! Just because there’s insurance, it’s not free money, the owner still has to cough up some dough, not to mention loss of business. Are you seriously saying they should just suck it up?
It's important to remember that oppression never ends voluntarily. Oppressors only cede power when the price of continuing the oppression is higher than the price of ending it. It doesn't work to politely request an end to oppression. People have to act, and sometimes civil unrest is the only way to demonstrate that oppression will not be tolerated.
That said, I believe in responsible civil unrest. That is, if I spray-painted "Black Lives Matter" on a building, I would expect to be charged with vandalism and would be prepared to pay the fine and help with the cleanup. Because if the cause is important enough to break the law for, it should be important enough to pay the price for too.
Anon5: And do you equally support rioting and harming others when it’s not a cause you agree with? Because you either think it’s OK for all or for none, not just the ones YOU agree with. Because otherwise that’s hypocrisy. If you support some people becoming violent and hurting innocent people to get their point across, that goes for ALL people.
I can't agree. If I stood before the judge after spray-painting "Black Lives Matter," I would hope and expect the judge to understand that this is civil action against intolerable levels of oppression and mistreatment that has been continuing for centuries. The cause, if not the method, is just.
When people were smashing the windows and storming the Capitol, it was for a bullshit lie to maintain illegitimate power and was a threat to democracy. Or on a smaller scale, sometimes sports fans riot, smash windows and burn cars. In those cases, I would expect and hope that the judge would find the cause and the method unjust. I support responsible civil unrest to end oppression but not for bullshit.
Anon5: Who is responsible if a building burns down because the whole crowd was throwing things on fire and rioting? Do we still chalk that up to civil action? What if 25 people die because of the multiple crowds? Who do we blame?
First, blame the people who participated in the action. Every person should be held legally responsible for the harm they cause and that's the point.
Secondly, in the case of systemic oppression, you also blame the oppression. People will not put up with being oppressed and if the oppression continues the unrest will erupt again. You can and should punish the people who lit the match, but that won't stop the next one. ONLY ending the oppression will.
Anon6: There is NO justification for violence, destruction of property, and so on. No getting around it. The answer is for people to throw the necessary temper-tantrums on their *own* property.
Nice thought, but don't expect it to happen.
We can't control what every single person, driven to the edge by despair and rage, will do. Some get hysterical at protests and try to light fires, some march with tiki torches, some mow down school children in a hail of bullets. As long as we stoke the despair and rage, violence will continue to erupt from every corner.
The ONLY answer is to stop driving people to the edge of insanity with deprivation and make things more fair. That, we have the power to do.
Anon5: And THAT is a nice thought. But in an extremist society someone, somewhere will be driven to insanity and rage if they feel their needs and ideas aren’t satisfied.
So no, you can’t control that...
You can control how often it happens, from very frequently to very rarely, by being a less extremist society and by giving everyone a fair shake. That keeps the civic temperature low and it does not boil over very often, which is vastly better.
Anon5: But you can certainly punish those who violate the law in an attempt to push their ideals.
That is exactly what I said, and I don't think anyone suggested otherwise. People who violate the law in an attempt to push their ideals should be prepared to face the legal consequences.
Just don't pretend that is the solution. If you want to deter further civil unrest you have to remove the cause of the pain.
Anon6: It's not "a nice thought," it's the reality. There is no justification for destroying property, stealing from, threatening, harming others in other ways and so on to drive home social and political points. NO ONE will listen and in fact, many will turn their backs on those they would like to support their causes but have lost interest due to their behavior.
You are right. There is no justification for causing harm, and it definitely damages their cause. It's a bad idea in every way.
But, when people are oppressed, they do it anyway, and the worse the oppression is, the worse their response will be. No one *should* do it, but some people will because that is the natural human response to oppression. It's human psychology. People find oppression intolerable and some will move to strike back, even irrationally. You can't expect this basic fact of human nature to change.
Anon6: We were all taught as children that with very few exceptions, we are each responsible for our own actions. It's time to get smart, stop the tantrums, and grow up.
For many years, the history of slavery was taught in a way that depicted the captive Africans as passive victims. More recent depictions try to show that the people who were enslaved were not just acted upon, but were also actors in their own defense. Enslaved people did not always cooperate nicely. They did organized work slowdowns, they broke tools, they destroyed equipment and burned down sheds. They had uprisings and killed people. This is understood as predictable human behavior in defiance of an atrocious order which was dehumanizing them.
Innocents were harmed. People were deprived of property. Should slaves have done this? Maybe not. But this IS how people act when they are oppressed. If you just punish people for their 'tantrums' and ignore the oppression, the behavior you don't like will continue.
Anon5: Black people are not slaves, pretending their actions today are excused by the actions of slaves in the 1800's is not an excuse that's going to be accepted by most of society.
Black people and many others are still facing oppression. That is why "Black Lives Matter" exists in the first place. If you expect human beings to take that shit lying down, you don't understand human psychology. Deprive and enrage millions of people, and some of them will lash out in response.
You know who else is being oppressed, living in deprivation that makes them desperate and filled with rage and despair? White people. As stupid and misguided as the attackers were on January 6, they were responding to the exact same psychological prompts - a sense of grievance at unfair deprivation. They have been manipulated into blaming The Other, but the source of their deprivation is the same.
Ordinary people - of every race - are being exploited to death in this country and that is the source of ALL the unrest. If we want fewer riots, less crime of every kind, less political polarization, less racism and more cooperation, we have to share the results of our labors more effectively. As long as people are struggling to get by in the world's richest country, the oppression and unfairness will drive some of them to violence.
Missy: As evidenced by this post, black people are *still* being seen as second class citizens.
Anon5: How so?
Anon5: No. White people aren’t being oppressed, Black people aren’t being oppressed and the kids from the Occupy movement weren’t being oppressed either.
You don’t like how an election turned out? Campaign harder next time.
You don’t like how corporate is treating you? Start your own business. Everyone in America can do it and every demographic has proved it.
You’re a 28 year old man who wants respect from strangers? Put on a suit and a tie. Don’t like the restrictions society places on your self expression when it comes to first impressions? Suck it up and dress like a respectable adult anyways.
Most of society is really getting tired of the victim mentality everyone and their cousin is being brought up to have.
5-15-22 8:19 • Another Shooting Today
Kell: There was another shooting, this time in a California church. With a handgun thank God instead of an automatic weapon. If the shooter had not stopped to reload it’s doubtful the pastor would have been able to tackle him like he did.
We should do something about this.
May: You idiot, if you are going to rally for a cause, at least know what you are talking about! Shooters use SEMI automatics, not automatics!
Fishface: There is no educating some people.
The difference is not important. Rapid-fire weapons capable of mass killing are the problem, not what they are called.
This ad hominem is purest deflection.
Kell: Another, another, another. There’s always “another mass shooting” in this country.
We’re not safe in churches, grocery stores, schools, movie theaters, concerts, clubs…the list goes on.
When will enough be enough?
May: Safety is an illusion for all humans. We're never totally safe.
People in countries with fewer guns are much safer from the threat of death or injury by gunfire. That's not "totally safe" but it is better.
Kell: You think it’s ok for people to walk the streets of America strapped with assault weapons like ISIS wannabes. That’s what’s been happening more and more. It’s out of hand.
Fishface: He didn't use an assault rifle. Assault rifles have been used 3 times to commit crimes since 1934.
Why so seldom?
May: Because the NRA supported the NFA of 1934.
National Firearms Act, 1934
This legislation is a direct response to gang violence, this act imposed criminal, regulatory and tax requirements on weapons favored by gangsters: machine guns, silencers and sawed-off shotguns.
So, it is because those guns are illegal.
Fishface: I legally own one.
As a dealer I would guess you have an FFL. Or:
As a private citizen (without an FFL) you can only buy an old machine gun (over 35 years old), it’ll likely cost north of $15,000, and you’ll have to wait around a year for the transfer via an ATF Form 4.
For example, a private citizen can lawfully own a machine gun only if:
• the possessor isn’t a “prohibited person,”
• the full-auto machine gun was made before 1986, and
• their relevant state law does not ban that the firearm (whether banning machine guns outright or any firearm with certain features).
Sounds like they are very highly regulated. Wouldn't it be nice if there had only been 3 crimes committed by semi-automatics in the last 80 years? This shows how it could have been.
May: Automatics aren't illegal. They are restricted. A permit is required with a hell of a background check. They're just really expensive to buy.
Would that they all were.
May: What's your solution?
You know one solution. Semi-automatics are just as dangerous as fully automatics and should be restricted in the same way for the same reasons.
Fishface: You don't know shit. An assault weapon is select fire. An AR is not.
Whatever. That makes no difference at all to the size of the pile of bodies, does it?
Most mass shooters - by far, 56% - use handguns. Most gun accidents in the home involve handguns and most children who die by gunfire are killed by handguns. By body count, they are the most dangerous.
The fact is that all of these weapons are as dangerous and deadly as the ones that you say are never used in crime, because they are restricted. They should all be restricted.
Kell: You are not going to get robbed, and anyway you are better off with a good security system.
May: Tell that to the guy who broke into my house, lol.
Kell: Did you have a security system?
May: As a matter of fact I did. I got there before the police did. Imagine walking in to find a guy sitting on the dining room table with all of your valuables, including sentimentals and precious heirlooms that have been handed down. Thank God for the two trained dobermans. They let him in and would not let him out. He was begging me to call them off. I said, when the cops get here. If he moved they would have tore his ass.
So if you were armed, would you order an intruder to leave, hold him for the police at gunpoint, or shoot to kill any stranger you saw in your house?
Side question, did you train your dobermans to let the intruder go through your drawers and closets and gather all your valuables into the dining room before they showed themselves?
May: Well...
So many people structure their entire lives, and want to structure our entire society, around having a textbook-perfect home defense shooting. The circumstances we have to maintain to protect against this rare encounter are killing and maiming innocent people including children every day. How is this worth it?
And how can we pretend this is the only way to live when we are the only country doing it?
5-15-22 9:23 • What Does Tucker Push?
MW: Another mass shooting by a white supremist, this time in Buffalo, NY. The shooter left a manifesto referencing the "Great Replacement," a theory pushed by Tucker Carlson.
Fishface: How is it that i never see Tucker push that and i watch him every night.
It is the reasoning behind his "masculinity in decline" and sperm count fixations.
5-14-22 6:54 • Good Neighbors
Lucy: Our neighbors are complaining about us. We are outside of the town limits, the noise ordinance does not apply to us! So we can do what we want. Shoot our guns, drive our ATVs, and play loud music late at night. They don't like it, but that's not our fault. I ignore their complaints.
It's not "your fault" but you have psychopathic levels of unconcern for how others feel. Why not be a good neighbor instead of caring only for yourself??
Lucy: These people just complain about everything.
Should I also get rid of all my animals because they have been complaining about them for years? Should I stop hunting on my own land because they have complained about that for years?
Should we not be able to use ATVs or dirt bikes on our land because they have complained about that for years?
I decided from the start when it was clear that they were completely unreasonable and unwilling to compromise that I would no longer waste my time and energy actually worrying about what they think and changing my life.
Bragging about how much you are telling them to go fuck themselves is the opposite of this.
5-04-22 2:34 • Jesus v. Buddha on Another Planet
Qnotanon: Here's a weird question I thought of - for those who are Christian and believe there is other intelligent life in the universe, do you think Christ was sacrificed on those planets as well?
Oda: If there is life on other planets they probably would have developed their own religion that has nothing to do with Christianity.
If they are sentient and mortal they will have suffering, so I hope at least they had a Buddha.
Jemmy: But why a Buddha and not a Jesus? :-)
A Buddha is a type of person. Perhaps Jesus was a Buddha.
Qnotanon: I would imagine there would be some figure in other world civilizations beliefs that offers comfort, love, hope, and peace. I don’t think Buddha is any less possible.
It would not be Siddhartha Gautama of course. But any enlightened mind who can use focused attention to transcend suffering would qualify.
Jemmy: I guess where the difficulty lies for me is that in my beliefs, there’s no individual, no orindary human being that is revered as a divine (or almost divine) being. That concept for me puts certain limitations on what that being can do.
As long as a being can use focused attention and compassion to alleviate suffering, that would be the greatest thing they could do to help sentients have better lives. Limited, but still (almost) divinely beautiful.
Jemmy: I disagree. Because the only way you can be sure you’re doing something for the benefit of others is to be omniscient. In other words, it’s those limitations that make it a guessing game that can go horribly wrong.
Human teachers are not perfect but we still have to try.
Jemmy: Giving everyone a cushy and comfortable life, without any pain and suffering may sound very nice and compassionate, but is it really for their own good? What’s true goodness and compassion then?
"Giving everyone a cushy and comfortable life?" Is that what you think Buddhism is? Because it totally isn't. It's a set of skills.
Jemmy: Which makes an (almost) divine individual deeply flawed and prone to do more harm than good, as beautiful as his/hers intentions are.
So, don't teach these skills?
Jemmy: That’s the thing. Humans aren’t perfect. We make mistakes because of our limitations. And yeah, all we can do is try.
The same will apply to any being in the universe with those limitations.
But if there was a being without those limitations, he wouldn’t need to try. He would what needs to be done, what’s best for every individual every time. Even if that sometimes means hardship.
Well maybe, but who knows? In the meantime, learning to overcome suffering with focused attention is a set of skills anyone can learn which is extremely beneficial, especially if they are in hardship. If aliens are sentient, and mortal, I cannot imagine they would need it less than humans do.
4-20-22 4:21 • Sexism on the Beach
R-Mom: My mother-in-law is aghast that I let both my son (6) and my daughter (4) go without a top at the beach. She thinks my DD needs to cover up, but at this age she has no more to cover than my son. Putting a top on girls this young is just conditioning them to believe that their future breasts must be covered - I think it's sexist.
Blaine: That's not sexist, it's called modesty. A girl is way more likely to be creeped on than a boy.
R-Mom: My SD was creeped on by 2 teen boys at the pool when she was maybe 5. It doesn't matter what they wear, creepers are going to creep.
Blaine: But girls are less likely to be creeped on when fully covered.
R-Mom: I think that's teaching a girl to be ashamed of her body.
Blaine: Why is it shame? If you’ve got a stack of hundreds, you might think it’s a better idea not to wave it around.
That doesn’t mean you’re ashamed of having money.
Or maybe you should just stay home. You can't risk it.
Blaine: Covering girls so they don't get creeped on is just taking sensible precautions.
No, it's like making your kids wear shoes at the beach, just so they won't get "creeped on" by foot fetishists.
Blaine: No, you make your kids wear flip flops at the beach because the sand gets so hot it can make their feet blister. It's just a logical way to go about the day.
I would not make my kids keep their shoes on the whole time, even if they wanted to take them off to run in the water, just because there *might* be people around who would be titillated by the sight of toes. That is the rationale of the 'little girls wear tops but not boys' argument, which is dumb.
Blaine: We all decide which risks to take and which ones we won’t give credence to.
If you don’t believe that there are enough pedophiles in the world to take some extra precautions, so be it.
There are more foot fetishists than there are pedophiles, so you better not let your kids wear flip flops. That's just hanging those toes out there like a big ol' wad of cash.
4-19-22 11:11 • Which Party is Worse?
Rose: What does someone have to do, to be rejected as a candidate by the Republican party? This candidate for Clark County School Board just said that homosexuality was against the Constitution. He also has lots of pictures of himself posing with Confederate flags, saying he hasn't given up on "their stance."
MM: That's a 'real' Republican these days.
Daisy: Bull*cough*shit*cough*!
I guess Bernie and AOC and the squad are the "real Democrats” these days? The BLM too?
What is it our esteemed president said? "If you don’t vote for me you ain’t black?"
So in the last R v. D discussion I asked for specific examples of Democrats being as bad and crazy as Republicans. I don't find the AOC Tax the Rich dress or her emotional vote on the Iron Dome to be as crazy as this. I don't think Biden's 'you aint black' remark is as cruel or bigoted as this. I also find the Republican "Stop the Steal" campaign to be the most offensive and dangerous political movement in America. So unless you know of other examples, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that Dem politicians are equal in perfidy to Republicans.
Lou: Obviously you don’t find those things as crazy. But to me, they’re equally crazy.
Just because those examples didn’t pass your bias in your analysis that doesn’t mean that they weren’t real and proper examples.
I disagree that they represent a threat to democracy.
The problem with these fringe Republicans is not the quality of their mental health. It is that the Republican platform is to systematically weaken government.
MM: What we really need is to get more independents in and make that party big enough to get into the debates.
A multi-party system would help, along with ranked-choice voting. But what we really need is publicly financed elections. Courting donor cash is corrupting.
MM: Hear hear!
Jen: I agree!
Daisy: Do you also agree with the “Squad” and others defund the police?
I don’t believe this guy represents the majority of republicans like some are suggesting.
Biden represents the majority of democrats and his slogan is "Fund the police." Who do you think represents the majority of republicans?
Daisy:
*crickets*
_________________________________________
Lou: Where did I say that they were a threat to democracy?
The threat to democracy is what I am talking about. I don't agree that both sides are equally crazy so that's the problem. Maybe they are equally crazy, but the problem is the threat to democracy that is coming from almost the entire Republican political operation from top to bottom.
The threat from Democrats is that they will not defend democracy vigorously enough.
Lou: Sanders with his everything-free-for-everyone ideas and The Squad with their immaturity and prejudices dictating their political agendas are very harmful to America.
So who is actually more dangerous to America? I guess we’ll see, but I hope we don’t.
I don't agree that universal healthcare or free community college represent radical, society-ruining ideas. Many other countries have this. It is an investment in the health and strength of society that pays back in fewer crises.
Rose: The left extremists want everybody to have health coverage and to not scorch the earth. The right extremists are bullying trans kids or LGBT groups and accusing random teachers of being groomers and pedophiles, in addition to the whole being actively hostile to a functioning democracy. One side is decidedly worse than the other.
Both parties are sick but the Republicans are running a higher temperature. They are both dying of the same disease that is killing everything.
Daisy: There is no candidate who truly gives a damn about us.
You would think AOC might, since she had to sleep in her office until she got her first paycheck so she could afford rent. Now she drives a Tesla, wears designer clothes and lectures people on taxes and wealth. *rolls eyes*
To think she is #10 on the democrat 2024 presidential list scares the crap out of me!
Funny, that doesn't scare me at all. A lot of people respond to an upgrade in their financial status by buying a better car and nicer clothes. It seems perfectly ordinary.
The future that scares me is one where women do not have control over their reproductive health, and where climate change is destroying the crops. Also where authoritarians with no respect for rule of law obstruct justice and do blackmail to maintain power, and overturn the will of the voters in elections. Those things are serious.
Lou: Change the wording, change the debate.
The debate is, who is more dangerous, Dems or Repubs?
Daisy's argument seems to be that of course Democrats are more to be feared, because AOC is a hypocrite who takes advantage of her new status to get a Tesla while expecting others to sacrifice. So first of all, not really. There is nothing inconsistent with owning a Tesla and still wanting Elon Musk to be taxed enough. More importantly, there is nothing insidious or dangerous about her political philosophy, democratic socialism. It's mainstream in many countries and works well. You don't agree, but that doesn't make her a bad, scary person, or her politics problematic for the country.
Secondly, while people claim to be crapping themselves with fear over AOC, you are closing your eyes to the real threat - an entire party of liars and cheats who obstruct justice and tried to subvert a legitimate election and are refusing all accountability for their violent insurrection, filled from top to bottom with conspiracy theorists, racists and utter loons who are working to erase the gains of the Civil Rights movement. That's not an exaggeration, these literally ARE scary people doing bad things, who do not care about the truth or functioning government. Meanwhile, they are ignoring and exacerbating the existential threat of climate change, which is altering our way of life for the worse, permanently. There is no question that this group is more dangerous.
That's the debate, or should be. If there are actual arguments to the contrary I'm looking forward to hearing them.
4-02-22 3:35 • Lying to Children About Faries
Lilac: Do you believe it's somehow damaging to lead children to believe that there are mythical persons and/or creatures such as Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy? Or do you think it's just cute and harmless?
My husband believes that it's essentially lying (which I suppose it is) and cruel to purposely set up a child for the disappointment they'll feel when they find out it's all untrue. He also believes that it's teaching the child that his/her parents aren't trustworthy.
So, we had this debate before DS was born, and I admittedly was one that thought it was just cute and harmless. But now I'm not so sure. How do you feel?
We did stuff with Santa, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, etc without claiming that they are real.
Lilac: How do you involve Santa and the Easter Bunny while explaining that they are not real?
We just never said that they were. When they were tiny they didn't have a concept of "real" and "not real" and it never came up.
When they were old enough to ask if they were real, we answered the same way as when they asked if Harry Potter was real - no, just imaginary.
Lilac: Didn't you think that would ruin the fun?
No, I never saw the point in claiming that they were real to begin with. What is the difference between a present from Santa and a present from "Santa"?
Angeleyes: Providing magic, imagination and play to children is not damaging.
I really don't see why you would have to claim Santa is real to provide that. We certainly never told the kids that Pooh Bear is real and they were enchanted by him anyway.
Angeleyes: Santa is very real to my kids. That's PART of the magic.
It is not less magical otherwise.
For example, years ago my daughter lost a tooth. She was very excited to give it to the "tooth fairy." She asked us to put in in a pretty box for her like a present, and she asked me to help her write a note thanking the tooth fairy and telling her how much she loved her.
As we were tucking the items under her pillow, she leaned over to me and whispered, "You're really the tooth fairy, right?" I smiled and nodded yes. She giggled like crazy, so happy to be "in on it." She said, "There's a surprise for you under my pillow!"
Moments of truth are no less magical than any other.
Angeleyes: Being honest in all things at all times is damaging.
Other than "does this make my ass look big" moments of interpersonal diplomacy - how?
Angeleyes: I don't know about you, but I told my 5 year old that her grandpa went to heaven. I did not tell her he died a horrible protracted painful cancer ridden death where he was begging to be killed at the end.
Are you sure those were the only two choices?
Angeleyes: And when she is old enough to know the truth about Santa, she will hold his magic in her spirit and help to lie to her baby sister about Santa.
To each their own. I'm just glad that the magic of Santa doesn't involve teaching kids to "help lie" around here.
Angeleyes: Okay. My kids will be liars and yours won't.
I'm cool with it.
But, what if something bad happens? Kids ask questions. What will you do then?
I answer honestly. We have had pets run over and grandparents die of cancer in this family, too. The kids had some questions, but it never occurred to me to say anything untrue about what happened. They had some sadness at these events, but eventually felt better, like most people. It was not necessary to lie to get them through it well.
So, I disagree with your claim that honesty is somehow "damaging."
Angeleyes: I lie to my kids. I make no bones about it.
To each their own, I suppose.
Angeleyes: When I was little, about four or five, my parents actually tried to explain the scientific reasoning behind thunder. Since it didn't work, they told me it was just angels playing jump rope on the clouds.
Those aren't the only two options. When our kids were very tiny and they asked what thunder was, we said it was noise caused by the clouds rubbing together. At its most simplistic, that is basically what it is. It is not a lie or too complex for a kid to understand.
Angeleyes: In my family, the magic of our childhood Christmas is still remembered, and we all recall it, and my now 31 year old sister recalls it as a day that magic happened, and that her parents loved imagination very very much.
My son and his father are very into gaming. That is, old-fashioned 12-sided-die role playing. We have dice in the car, and when we go for long drives my husband DMs the whole family.
One weekend we journeyed through an incredible ancient city built by giants. We took on elvish characteristics, and the miles flew by underneath us as we quested to decipher a magic rune. My husband is such an amazing storyteller, and my son is such an imaginative player, together they create a world where you can almost see the huge stone edifices and the gnarled bark of the ancient trees.
Those two get so deep into a trance state that they just keep going even when we get out of the car. We stop for dinner, get out and stretch, etc, and they barely notice - they just keep talking about how to get past this doorway or to the next village. Even the little kids are entirely swept up and adding their own details.
We can drive literally all day and no one even gets into a poking fight or asks, "Are we there yet?"
Childhood imagination - and adult imagination - can create real magic!
4-01-22 11:11 • New AZ Regulations
Jolene: The Gov of AZ has signed a new bill that prohibits abortion after 15 weeks and gender affirming surgery (not hormones) before age 18. What do you think of this?
I think abortions and elective surgeries should be more rather than less available by law, but these restrictions are not egregious. Could we compromise and stop here? If so I could live with this while more urgent matters are tended to.
But is that really the plan? I doubt it. I don't think that, nationwide, the new restrictions are really trying to protect anyone. They are flexing against traditional culture war schisms for the sake of cheap pandering. And I don't think they will stop here. So that is my objection.
Read more in the Archives.