Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Categories

Attention, Beamdog forum-goers!📢Starting on November 8, our forums will be unavailable for a few weeks while we migrate to a self-hosted site.

Check out the full announcement for more information on forum features, data transfer, and 3rd party OAuth:

https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/83099/beamdog-forum-migration

The Politics Thread

1683684686688689693

Comments

  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    jmerry wrote: »
    A thought on a response to those bombings - what if it's the Taliban that responds? Have some law enforcement put in a serious effort to arrest the bombers and/or their more local backers. It is, after all, an attack that hit civilians in their own territory, and the Taliban wants to be seen as a legitimate government...

    I am pretty sure the suicide bombers are dead and can't be arrested.

    As for the their backers, Afghanistan has been in a civil war for the last two decades that isn't/wasn't two sided. I am pretty sure the Taliban will respond after August 31 to the attack and the fighting will continue long after the US leaves.

    Balrog99ThacoBell
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,267
    m7600 wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    You still dream (unless heavily drugged) every night. You just don't remember them. You're still breathing, and your body is aware of it enough to wake you up when you stop.

    Sure, but there's a difference between REM sleep and deep sleep, in the former there are dreams, in the latter there isn't. It's true that I still exist even when I'm in deep sleep, and it's true that I'm still breathing, etc. But I'm not in a conscious state, there's no first-person perspective in dreamless sleep.

    I don't think that's right. But I also don't feel like looking it up right now. So I'll have to give you the nod in good faith.

  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,255
  • m7600m7600 Member Posts: 317
    Allow me to use a metaphor. Suppose that you stop using your computer for a few minutes, but you don't turn it off. The screensaver kicks in, and the screen goes black. There are no visible icons or windows anymore, even though the computer is still running. That would be comparable to non-REM sleep, AKA deep sleep. When you turn the computer off, the screen looks the same: it's a black screen. So, turning off your computer would be a metaphor for dying. From a first-person perspective point of view, there's no difference between non-REM sleep and death, because there's no first-person perspective in either of those, just as there's no difference between the black screen of your computer when it's running (but not being used), and the black screen of that same computer when it's turned off.

    That's kind of what I'm getting at.

  • m7600m7600 Member Posts: 317
    edited August 27
    But that's not really what puzzles me. What puzzles me is the opposite: when I'm fully awake, why is there a first person perspective to begin with? And why is it in this body instead of another body? Why do I see the world through my eyes instead of yours? Why do you see the world through your eyes instead of mine? Some popular scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye like to say that we're a means through which the Universe gets to know itself. Ok, but why does it do it through this body of mine? Why does it do it through your body, at this precise moment in history, and not 200 years ago or 200 years in the future? After all, every first-person perspective is situated in a particular moment, in a particular country, and in a particular culture. Why? Why does it have these historical and geographical details instead of others?

    Balrog99
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,655
    The bombings today in Afghanistan are horrific, and are sad. They've been warning of an ISIS-K attack for days, and well, I guess this was it.

    On the subject of retribution - I agree that it wont do anything. That said, while we are leaving Afghanistan, I'm sure the (massive air quotes here) "War on Terror" is going to continue unabated. I havent specifically looked at the details, but I assume the number of Drone Strikes are still quite high (They've gone up under every president).

    My guess is that one of those drone strikes which is traditionally not publicized will be scaled up and paraded as the retribution Biden has just called for. Cynically, that's probably the best outcome here. The worst would be a larger military operation that causes more loss of life and just radicalizes more people.

  • FandraxxFandraxx Member Posts: 181
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Most, but not all, dreams occur during REM sleep.

    https://www.uofmhealth.org/health-library/hw48331

    When I was younger, I used to have lucid dreams during what I would assume is the non-rem stage of sleep. It would usually happen when I would go back to sleep after waking in the middle of the night. Go back to bed and suddenly find myself in a fantasy world or a distorted past memory, and be completely aware of it.

    Controlling your dreams might sound fun, but trust me, being somewhere that you know isn't real for usually at least an hours worth of time is creepy (at least in my opinion). Then, wake up feeling like you had just slept (because you had), while at the same time feeling like you hadn't because you were running around in fantasy land.

    Not one to look for the void or anything, but I've definitely come to appreciate a dream-less sleep since.

    Balrog99
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,855
    edited August 27
    Fandraxx wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Most, but not all, dreams occur during REM sleep.

    https://www.uofmhealth.org/health-library/hw48331

    When I was younger, I used to have lucid dreams during what I would assume is the non-rem stage of sleep. It would usually happen when I would go back to sleep after waking in the middle of the night. Go back to bed and suddenly find myself in a fantasy world or a distorted past memory, and be completely aware of it.

    Controlling your dreams might sound fun, but trust me, being somewhere that you know isn't real for usually at least an hours worth of time is creepy (at least in my opinion). Then, wake up feeling like you had just slept (because you had), while at the same time feeling like you hadn't because you were running around in fantasy land.

    Not one to look for the void or anything, but I've definitely come to appreciate a dream-less sleep since.

    I still do it (though less in the last few years) and it absolutely sucks. As does having a photographic memory. It makes it so I literally can't even listen to the '90s channel on satellite radio for more than a half hour without becoming so depressed from the vivid nostalgia I have to change the channel.

    Fandraxx
  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 2,393
    edited August 27
    I dream every night several dreams. I think dreaming about strange worlds is awesome with one exception, dreams where you walk or sail into infinity where you only see white sky, no horizon, no objects other than your grounding.
    Dreams that give you a deja by after a few weeks are also nice. Dreams about work are sometimes stressful but I use them as a manifestation of my concerns that I need to address after waking up.

    About the first person perspective; it is likely a tool for the individual to observe the environment for basic survival. We also experience third person when observing another. Shallowly, the only means we have for others is that we can mimic another and based on our observations and interpretations of another act like the other. However, since we are neither physically or emotionally connected to other physical beings, we cannot do the first person of the other, to know exactly what it would be like to be the other in first person. For example, you can observe a cat and do a if you were a cat but never know its true feelings and thoughts.
    Arguably, items like intuition/6th sense and precognition are not classified yet because they can surpass the self, but what level of perspective are they really?
    I am quite interested in what could be second person. My thoughts on this are that this would be you observing youself from a third person interaction without allowed steering. This would be like an out of body experience where you get to only observe what you are doing. And this stuff happens to me sometimes at the point of dreaming where I hover over the bed and over the body. And this is ultimately creepy, because am I then still me, and can I get back into me, do I need to, and am I not just better off outside of me, will I survive outside the physical or is this another world to explore and in which we can connect.

    About drones being used more. That would be logical right? More tech, less human casualties on your side, the wet dream of all warlords.

  • wukewuke Member Posts: 103
    Maybe I just read too few books and am thinking too much, I'm sort of lost about the whole self-determination thing.
    The closest example might be Hong Kong for me. Before returning to China Hong Kong people generally don't reject the idea of being a Chinese culturally, in fact many old Hong Kong movies and novels show much more national identity than those in PRC at that time. For example even today Jackie Chan is very vocal on patriotic ideas. Then in 1997 it was returned, today it's obvious the new generations actively hate being identified as "Chinese" in any sense, and I respect that.
    I guess it's all about taking responsibility for what you believe. Some older generations wanted to return to the big family and get rid of British colonists, then their children now have to find out there can be worse things than colonization. (Although to be fair, colonization in China was much more "civil" if you compared it to Africa or America. I understand if people get upset when I say "good" things about it.)

  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,032
    I saw this article about the continuing debate on mask mandates in the US - a judge in Florida has said that the Governor is not entitled to prevent school districts from enforcing mask mandates.

    I haven't looked at the case itself, but the legal reasoning in the article notes that individual rights must be subject to some limits where those rights impact on the rights of other people. i.e. there needs to be a balance between people's rights to determine their own health protection and the rights of others not to be infected by someone refusing to take precautions.

    While we've covered the arguments on this extensively, the point in the article that particularly interested me was the judge's reference to people not being free to cry fire in a crowded theatre. That's a reference to a quote in the case of US vs Schenck, which was about censorship in WWI. Although I don't think that statement should be controversial, it has been for many years. The original case in Schenck supported censorship, but that was in the context of war fever. Pretty soon after that the Supreme Court started narrowing the relevance of the case and it was eventually overturned in full in Brandenburg vs Ohio in 1969.

    While the Schenck case was about free speech, I still suspect that including the statement about crying fire in this case will not improve the odds that the judgment will be supported on appeal ...

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,855
    edited August 28
    Grond0 wrote: »
    I saw this article about the continuing debate on mask mandates in the US - a judge in Florida has said that the Governor is not entitled to prevent school districts from enforcing mask mandates.

    I haven't looked at the case itself, but the legal reasoning in the article notes that individual rights must be subject to some limits where those rights impact on the rights of other people. i.e. there needs to be a balance between people's rights to determine their own health protection and the rights of others not to be infected by someone refusing to take precautions.

    While we've covered the arguments on this extensively, the point in the article that particularly interested me was the judge's reference to people not being free to cry fire in a crowded theatre. That's a reference to a quote in the case of US vs Schenck, which was about censorship in WWI. Although I don't think that statement should be controversial, it has been for many years. The original case in Schenck supported censorship, but that was in the context of war fever. Pretty soon after that the Supreme Court started narrowing the relevance of the case and it was eventually overturned in full in Brandenburg vs Ohio in 1969.

    While the Schenck case was about free speech, I still suspect that including the statement about crying fire in this case will not improve the odds that the judgment will be supported on appeal ...

    School districts have been telling children what they can and can't wear for my entire life and long before that. Off the top of my head, just in the course of a couple months when I was a junior/senior in high school they banned Co-Ed Naked apparel and wouldn't let girls wear white v-neck t-shirts without something over the top of them.

    Beyond that, and pardon me for being so blunt, but I don't really give a shit about the "legal" arguments. We shouldn't be having to have legal arguments. People are dying. People can contribute to preventing it by taking a MILDLY inconvenient step when they are indoors with others. And they won't. And it's not because of their freedom, or their religious beliefs (which two kids and their father are now claiming in a story that came out today) or because of any "research" they've done into the topic. They won't wear them because they are selfish pricks who believe their right to be 110% comfortable at all hours of every day of the year outweighs the right of a stranger's right to continue to live. That's all this boils down to.

    I don't see the point is pussyfooting around the topic anymore. About 30-35% of the US population are holding the rest of the country hostage, and they are, quite frankly, having a grand old time doing so. They think it's fun. They think this is some sort of game and they're scoring points against people they hate. These people aren't redeemable. They can't be reasoned with. Shame won't work. Coddling won't work. The only thing that can be done is to TRY plow through this despite their apparent desire to have this continue in perpetuity. Whatever is accomplished in trying to put this behind us will take place in spite of them. Because they would rather be six feet underground than part of the solution. This is not hyperbole.

    ThacoBell
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,032
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Grond0 wrote: »
    I saw this article about the continuing debate on mask mandates in the US - a judge in Florida has said that the Governor is not entitled to prevent school districts from enforcing mask mandates.

    I haven't looked at the case itself, but the legal reasoning in the article notes that individual rights must be subject to some limits where those rights impact on the rights of other people. i.e. there needs to be a balance between people's rights to determine their own health protection and the rights of others not to be infected by someone refusing to take precautions.

    While we've covered the arguments on this extensively, the point in the article that particularly interested me was the judge's reference to people not being free to cry fire in a crowded theatre. That's a reference to a quote in the case of US vs Schenck, which was about censorship in WWI. Although I don't think that statement should be controversial, it has been for many years. The original case in Schenck supported censorship, but that was in the context of war fever. Pretty soon after that the Supreme Court started narrowing the relevance of the case and it was eventually overturned in full in Brandenburg vs Ohio in 1969.

    While the Schenck case was about free speech, I still suspect that including the statement about crying fire in this case will not improve the odds that the judgment will be supported on appeal ...

    School districts have been telling children what they can and can't wear for my entire life and long before that. Off the top of my head, just in the course of a couple months when I was a junior/senior in high school they banned Co-Ed Naked apparel and wouldn't let girls wear white v-neck t-shirts without something over the top of them.

    Beyond that, and pardon me for being so blunt, but I don't really give a shit about the "legal" arguments. We shouldn't be having to have legal arguments. People are dying. People can contribute to preventing it by taking a MILDLY inconvenient step when they are indoors with others. And they won't. And it's not because of their freedom, or their religious beliefs (which two kids and their father are now claiming in a story that came out today) or because of any "research" they've done into the topic. They won't wear them because they are selfish pricks who believe their right to be 110% comfortable at all hours of every day of the year outweighs the right of a stranger's right to continue to live. That's all this boils down to.

    I don't see the point is pussyfooting around the topic anymore. About 30-35% of the US population are holding the rest of the country hostage, and they are, quite frankly, having a grand old time doing so. They think it's fun. They think this is some sort of game and they're scoring points against people they hate. These people aren't redeemable. They can't be reasoned with. Shame won't work. Coddling won't work. The only thing that can be done is to TRY plow through this despite their apparent desire to have this continue in perpetuity. Whatever is accomplished in trying to put this behind us will take place in spite of them. Because they would rather be six feet underground than part of the solution. This is not hyperbole.

    The argument isn't about uniform policy, but health care - and the rights of parents to determine that for their children.

    I agree that the issue is straightforward, but not everyone agrees. In that situation the legal arguments are crucial. Where there's a clash of competing rights I don't see any options other than having the courts settle it, or introducing fresh legislation (which is not going to happen in the short term). Taking the line that others have to agree with you - no matter how compelling you (and I) think the case is - will not resolve anything.

    I also think you underestimate the impact of misinformation on individual views. People may be inclined, as a result of their 'political' leanings, to look for reasons for not being vaccinated or wearing masks - and they then readily find those reasons. That's one of the problems with the free speech arguments considered in the Schenck case and its successors. The argument in support of free speech is that if misinformation is published then the appropriate remedy is not to ban it, but to allow it to be buried under the weight of 'good' opinion. The difficulty with that is it simply doesn't work in the internet age - silos can be created if necessary to avoid misinformation being buried and the ease of publication means a vociferous minority can create too much content to be buried anyway.

    To some degree I think the situation will be self-correcting in that the level of disease and death over the next few years will be much higher on those who don't take precautions. While there will always be some people who get stuck in extreme positions, there have been plenty of examples up to now of people who have changed their views as a result of they or their relatives getting sick - and I would expect that to continue to happen.

    ArviaBalrog99
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,855
    edited August 28
    If one can claim a "religious exemption" to a mask mandate in schools, then what I have been saying for (literally) years in this thread is true. You can claim an exemption to any public ordinance or work mandate if you are sufficiently white and sufficiently Christian. You don't have to provide actual context for the belief within an actual holy book or set of documents, you just DECLARE it and that's that apparently. Nurses, of all people, are also doing this at hospitals requiring them to get vaxxed.

    What we have is a subset of the population who is at war with modernity itself. The subject of the press conference was Afghanistan, but when Biden put his head down on his folder and closed his eyes while listening to Pete Doocy of FOX News yesterday, I recognized the body language immediately. It's how I feel when I read the bulk of my messages I get at work. I truly believe his thought was "how the fuck am I supposed to govern a country this broken??"

    As for getting people to change their minds about the vaxx, the successful conversion stories I see are usually not the result of ridicule OR gentle coddling, but ultimatums. You aren't seeing your grandkids again until you do this. You aren't allowed at my wedding unless you do this. Foot down, line in the sand stuff. Which is why a mandate for even GETTING on an airplane, no exceptions, nationwide, is needed.

    You have the police union in Chicago now complaining about having to comply with Mayor Lightfoot's mandate for officers. This is really something. These are people who can literally FORCE you to be in close contact with them on whim, in a closed car if they so much get a bug up their ass about how you looked at them, and they apparently also think they have the right to be a biological weapon in that case as well. This is actually a great way to get rid of some people who should absolutely not be in the policing profession. Seriously, hit the road, jack.

    jonesr65ThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,855
    In the end, in two weeks, one of the largest airlifts in history took place. 100,000 Afghani allies were evacuated, and basically all but 100 Americans, who are a mixture of people who could not get to the airport and dual-citizens who apparently aren't going anywhere.

    Trump seems to be suggesting we either reinvade or carpet bomb locations to save our "equipment". Which tells you a.) he never had any actual convictions on this matter, he was just saying what he thought the populist base wanted to hear and b.) he was never going to actually leave, which his own Secretary of Defense basically confirmed in an interview with a military publication last week.

    ThacoBell
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,655
    SCOTUS declined to block or comment upon the Texas Anti Abortion law that went into effect today. It's a ban after 6 weeks - which is generally considered to be before a woman would even be aware she is pregnant.

    The loop hole they're using is particularly dystopian: There are no government officials that are set in place to oversee the execution of the law, instead it appears the mechanism to prevent women from having abortions is that their fellow citizens are allowed to sue them and take them to civil court if they attempt to have an abortion after the 6 week period.

    This opportunity to sue also extends to anyone that helps the woman have an abortion (Which would obviously include the doctor, but also includes her friend that drives her to the clinic, or any other set of people).

    Abortion is now effectively illegal in Texas. Clinics will all probably need to close. The SCOTUS not putting a stop to this (as they often do with other heartbeat bills, until a case can be taken up by the SCOTUS) signals their thinking and leaning on the subject. A few weeks ago, it was said on here that the court is more center right than far right. That argument seems dead to me now - its inaction effectively ends RvW in Texas, and gives the blueprint to any other state that wants to end RvW elsewhere.


    My prediction is that the SCOTUS will try to eat its cake and have it too. They'll allow laws like in Texas to proceed while banning the overt laws in Mississippi. In the end, RvW will technically exist, but be meaningless as the ways to circumvent it are not prevented by the court.

    ThacoBellGrond0
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,255
    edited September 1
    There have been Mark Levin's around for along as I can remember. The difference between then and now is that when people on the religious right read stuff like this before, they thought it was the harbinger of the Apocalypse. They didn't think they had any power to do anything about it so they just prayed and waited. Now with social-media and the internet, they're starting to realize they do have power. It's scary how close their views mirror the Taliban...

    https://www.businessinsider.com/american-marxism-mark-levin-liberals-influential-conservative-propaganda-media-2021-8

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,855
    SCOTUS declined to block or comment upon the Texas Anti Abortion law that went into effect today. It's a ban after 6 weeks - which is generally considered to be before a woman would even be aware she is pregnant.

    The loop hole they're using is particularly dystopian: There are no government officials that are set in place to oversee the execution of the law, instead it appears the mechanism to prevent women from having abortions is that their fellow citizens are allowed to sue them and take them to civil court if they attempt to have an abortion after the 6 week period.

    This opportunity to sue also extends to anyone that helps the woman have an abortion (Which would obviously include the doctor, but also includes her friend that drives her to the clinic, or any other set of people).

    Abortion is now effectively illegal in Texas. Clinics will all probably need to close. The SCOTUS not putting a stop to this (as they often do with other heartbeat bills, until a case can be taken up by the SCOTUS) signals their thinking and leaning on the subject. A few weeks ago, it was said on here that the court is more center right than far right. That argument seems dead to me now - its inaction effectively ends RvW in Texas, and gives the blueprint to any other state that wants to end RvW elsewhere.


    My prediction is that the SCOTUS will try to eat its cake and have it too. They'll allow laws like in Texas to proceed while banning the overt laws in Mississippi. In the end, RvW will technically exist, but be meaningless as the ways to circumvent it are not prevented by the court.

    The six-week ban is bad enough, but the idea that this law codifies the fact that basically anyone can sue anyone for a $10,000 bounty in relation to even encouraging or talking to someone about an abortion is the most dystopian thing I've ever seen. Not only that, you aren't even reimbursed your legal fees if someone accuses you falsely and you prevail. This is complete insanity, and if the courts won't do anything, the only course of action is for people to attempt to melt down the legal docket by filing frivolous claims (since the law makes clear there is no penalty for doing so).

    Of course, the very idea that someone with no standing or ability to show damages can sue someone else for offering ADVISE to a woman they don't like is, as I mentioned above, insanity. How is this even remotely workable in the real world?? What lengths are these zealots going to go to obtain their "evidence"??

    BallpointManThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,855
    edited September 1
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    There have been Mark Levin's around for along as I can remember. The difference between then and now is that when people on the religious right read stuff like this before, they thought it was the harbinger of the Apocalypse. They didn't think they had any power to do anything about it so they just prayed and waited. Now with social-media and the internet, they're starting to realize they do have power. It's scary how close their views mirror the Taliban...

    https://www.businessinsider.com/american-marxism-mark-levin-liberals-influential-conservative-propaganda-media-2021-8

    A podcast I listen to calls the media's obsession with being confronted with what the GOP has ACTUALLY been listening to and reading for the last 30 years (hint: it isn't David Brooks columns in the New York Times) "magic ruralism". Any liberal who comes from these small town and rural areas could have told you talk radio is what shapes political opinion in these places. That Rush Limbaugh (when alive) carried about 100x more weight than Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw. Yet the Washington Post and CNN continue to send people to diners in one-stoplight towns, asking the same people the same questions, as if their answers are going to change. There have been hundreds of these stories/segments produced over the last half decade (and still not a single one asking questions of Hillary/Biden voters). And they are all meant to "shock" the viewer on the coast who hasn't lived in these places. It's not shocking if you are from any small town in America. All you had to do was pay attention, not make a genre of reporting out of it.

    Balrog99
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,255
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    There have been Mark Levin's around for along as I can remember. The difference between then and now is that when people on the religious right read stuff like this before, they thought it was the harbinger of the Apocalypse. They didn't think they had any power to do anything about it so they just prayed and waited. Now with social-media and the internet, they're starting to realize they do have power. It's scary how close their views mirror the Taliban...

    https://www.businessinsider.com/american-marxism-mark-levin-liberals-influential-conservative-propaganda-media-2021-8

    A podcast I listen to calls the media's obsession with being confronted with what the GOP has ACTUALLY been listening to and reading for the last 30 years (hint: it isn't David Brooks columns in the New York Times) "magic ruralism". Any liberal who comes from these small town and rural areas could have told you talk radio is what shapes political opinion in these places. That Rush Limbaugh (when alive) carried about 100x more weight than Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw. Yet the Washington Post and CNN continue to send people to diners in one-stoplight towns, asking the same people the same questions, as if their answers are going to change. There have been hundreds of these stories/segments produced over the last half decade (and still not a single one asking questions of Hillary/Biden voters). And they are all meant to "shock" the viewer on the coast who hasn't lived in these places. It's not shocking if you are from any small town in America. All you had to do was pay attention, not make a genre of reporting out of it.

    I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh though. Pre-social media and (especially) Trump, he was actually a good source of alternative information - kind of a foil to CNN. He never called for any violence, just told people to preach the conservative word. Once Trump entered office he became a total sell-out sycophant and even got sorta scary towards the end. There's a real poison in the atmosphere in this country and I have a gut feeling that something bad is brewing...

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,855
    edited September 1
    The Texas abortion law can be boiled down to this: the idea here is that the state can have plausible deniability. They aren't the ones stopping the abortions, it's the citizens of the state filing civil lawsuits. Make no mistake, it has now made every citizen of the state a potential vigilante. Did the Uber driver who took a woman to the clinic know she was going for an abortion?? Then he's susceptible to the bounty. Obviously the doctors and nurses are. Frankly, even health care providers that abide by the new 6-week rule are going to be so buried in these "lawsuits" that they won't be able to stay open. This is really nefarious, underhanded shit going on. Right up to the Supreme Court ALSO wanting plausible deniability, and putting it on their so-called "shadow docket". They know their ideas are wildly unpopular. So they have to pretend they aren't enacting or supporting them. Of course "plausible deniability" is rarely actually plausible once you understand the tactics of those who claim it.

    ThacoBell
  • jmerryjmerry Member Posts: 2,319
    It kind of had to be a "shadow docket" case; this was the question of whether to immediately halt enforcement of the law before the inevitable regular court case. There simply wasn't time for full arguments.

    Then again, it's not just the Supreme Court. The (5th) circuit court also declined to grant that injunction beforehand. And in a case like this, the standard for halting the law while things get litigated should be pretty low. Definitely a bad decision.

  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,450
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    suffice to say, the game is rigged and this system is an absolute farce. Don't come at me with the "win more elections" line. We did win the election we needed to prevent this. In 2012. It didn't matter. If these people get their way, elections won't matter AT ALL by the end of the decade.

    Just to add on to your points, but even with these, imo, unfair advantages, a significant part of America's conservative population fully believes that no, actually, the system is rigged against them. And to take away any of these anti-democratic advantages is to rig the game against them. And where majorities can win, those elections are fraudulent.

    There's definitely a major crisis of legitimacy brewing in the US.

    BallpointManjjstraka34ThacoBell
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    They just ruled 5-4 to refuse to block it. Officially. Wherever you were on September 1st, 2021 is where you were when Roe was overturned. Just like the "alarmists" said all along. Roberts joined the liberals. It was Kavanaugh and Barrett who swung the votes. And of course Gorsuch, who is just flat-out illegitimate given the circumstances of his appointment. This country is literally at the whim of a conservative minority, from the virus to the right to not be a brood mare.

    Gorsuch, appointed when the only black President was the only one not allowed to fill an open seat, and Barrett, whose appointment was the result of the Senate leader doing a complete 180 on his EXPLICIT excuse for the series of events that resulted in Gorsuch. And the guy who perjured himself. I won't even get into the fact that 4 of the 5 were appointed by men who lost the popular vote, or that they were confirmed by Senators who represent a fraction of the actual population of the country, but, suffice to say, the game is rigged and this system is an absolute farce. Don't come at me with the "win more elections" line. We did win the election we needed to prevent this. In 2012. It didn't matter. If these people get their way, elections won't matter AT ALL by the end of the decade.

    And even if you IGNORE the chilling implications I'm talking about above, at least admit the insanity of the fact that the court just basically said that any ostensibly unconstitutional law is a-ok as long as you outsource it to citizen bounty hunters. That isn't hyperbole. And neither is sounding the alarm about the rising tide of fascism in this country. Or you can ignore those warning about it for another 5 years. Your choice I guess.

    How it happened is really something. Basically in the middle of the night, and by giving tacit approval to citizens ratting out other people for a load of cash. The most disgustingly American way possible. I stand by my previous statements that if men could get pregnant, you could get an abortion at McDonald's with your fries. But since this is what we're apparently doing, it's high time men start paying child support at six weeks as well. And more than one missed payment means serious jail time, not a slap on the wrist. I desperately wish elected Democrats were capable of playing the kind of hardball necessary to fight back against this, but they aren't.

    I’ll one up you on the child support claims: Any missed payments means the State needs to cover the cost. It’s easy to implement too. Single parents with custody pay the state the court mandated costs and the state in return pays the parents with custody that amount.

    It’s easier to detect who are skimping on payments, and the state would have less red tape to go through to find other ways to collect.

    There’s also be a minimum amount that the single parent receives. So if the parent without custody is only flipping burgers at Wendy’s for minimum wage, that child would still have access to the same amount of funds as if that parent worked a medium wage job. This of course would be covered by the state and the tax payers who don’t give a damn what happens in on the child after it is out of the womb.

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,855
    edited September 2
    Let's workshop what happens if the reasoning behind the Texas law is actually applied fairly across all issues in practice. The Supreme Court has ruled that certain gun bans are unconstitutional. By the logic put forth here, any blue state could simply say "ok, we can't ban the guns, but if anyone you know OWNS one of the guns, or you know who sold it to them, you can sue them for $10,000". Of course, we all know as certain as the sun rises in the East that if a blue state DID attempt to pass such a law, this exact same court wouldn't waste 10 seconds before striking it down. Which reveals what an utter sham this whole thing is. This legal loophole/end-around would NEVER be allowed to continue, even temporarily, for ANY other issue. Only this one.

    For the record, I am guessing this law will be about as popular among the populace as sour milk. I'd be shocked if it even broke 30% approval if people were given the actual details. But the 30%, as we are learning in so many things, are basically able to hold the 70% hostage, even in matters of life and death.

    Post edited by jjstraka34 on
    Grond0ThacoBell
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,032
    Biden has sharply criticized SCOTUS over this decision - and rightly so I think, for a few reasons:
    - the legislation is clearly inconsistent with previous understanding of the constitutional position on abortion. In itself it's not unusual of course for SCOTUS to change its interpretation of the constitution. What is unusual though is to pretend that has not happened. I'm with Justice Sonia Sotomayor on this one, who said those justices who had allowed the law to stand had "opted to bury their heads in the sand" over a "flagrantly unconstitutional law".
    - the legislation bypasses the normal legislative approach, allowing almost anyone to sue whether or not they've suffered any personal injury. Over time that could result in a fundamental change in court processes - including SCOTUS. As @jjstraka34 says this type of legislation could be used for numerous purposes, including being weaponized by liberal states on issues like gun control and climate change. For that reason I would bet that SCOTUS will in fact determine this type of legislation unconstitutional within the next year or two. The fact though that Roberts was apparently unable to convince his colleagues to do that now seems to me confirmation that the court has a pretty strong political bias, able to overcome concerns about due process in order to reach a political goal.
    - another aspect of the law is that it allows people to sue retrospectively if federal law changes in future. Thus, for instance, SCOTUS could have put a hold on the legislation now pending a future decision (as they were in fact expected to do, in relation to the Mississippi legislation). If they had done so, such that the Texas legislation currently was not in force, abortions carried out by physicians now would still have been legal. However, it would have been possible to sue over such abortions in the future if the block on the legislation was eventually lifted. I guess that provision was put in there because it was expected SCOTUS would put a hold on the legislation. If that had been done, abortion providers would still have been wary of providing their services as they could be sued for years into the future if SCOTUS did eventually remove the bar on the legislation.

    Reading various bits of commentary this morning, I see that the legislation is commonly characterized as forbidding abortions. That is not the case. The prohibition is not on the abortion per se, but only on abortions carried out by physicians ("an individual licensed to practice medicine in this state"). While there is a very wide-ranging provision to sue others that support the abortion process, it's again only in relation to abortions by physicians. There is therefore no ban on, for instance, supporting and encouraging people to take abortion medication at home. While the relatively easy availability of such medication means it's unlikely there will be a wholesale return to the 'backstreet' abortions common in the past, I think it's difficult to argue that women will be safer using such medicine from an unregulated source and in an unregulated way, rather than under the supervision of a physician.

    Following on from the recent posts about freedom of speech, I'll also mention that the law specifically says that it can't be used where any speech or conduct complained of is protected by the First Amendment. The fact that such a wide range of conduct can be characterized as protected in this way will provide lots of room for argument when/if any of these cases do make it to court.

    ThacoBellDinoDin
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,855
    edited September 3
    Roberts is the only conservative member of the court who isn't full of shit up to his eyeballs. While the other 4 are pretending the citizen bounty reward is some quirky byproduct of the law, Roberts, refusing to be as disingenuous as a human being can possibly be, admits that OF COURSE that provision is meant to be a way to bypass judicial review entirely.

    This was not a surprise to the majority on the court who voted this way. It was coordinated with Texas State Legislature and lower circuits. Maybe not verbally, but everyone is quite well aware of what the game is. It's a single to every other state to move ahead with similar laws. That, at least in the interim, THIS is how you end Roe without having to say you ended Roe.

    Republican politicians and even FOX News are basically dead silent about this today. Because the Salem Witch Trial "I saw Goody Proctor with the Devil" aspect of this is too cute by half. They think this is very clever, but even many people who are SOLIDLY anti-abortion are going to find the bounty system terrifying and repulsive. Scores of people have turned away from the Christian religion entirely because the fundamentalists who define it are seen as sadistic, joyless prudes and no one wants to be associated with them. And they are really the only constituency who will support this aside from online edge-lords who hate women because they won't give them the time of day.

    Elie Mystal at "The Nation" has a hell of an idea, but it would require Democrats to grow a pair. Which is to have the Biden Administration send doctors deputized as Federal employees to Texas to offer abortion services. Because they are protected by qualified immunity (you know, the thing that makes it almost impossible to hold cops accountable) and are not subject to being sued under the Texas law. It is long past time for the blue team to start making some very public "if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander" moves, if only symbolically to drive true absurdity of this home. I am reminded of the state rep (I forget which one) a couple years ago who introduced a bill mandating vasectomies for men under certain conditions.

    As for the people who are "pro-life" who are in favor of this, I'd really like them to explain how taking $10,000.00 out of the hands of close family of the woman you want to force to have the baby is going to contribute to that child's well-being going forward. Apparently the idea is to a.) force the pregnancy to term and b.) bankrupt them in the process. I don't see how one needs anymore evidence that the anti-choice movement has been overrun by people who want to control woman rather than prevent abortions. The details of this law are so cruel and so punitive it leaves no more room for debate. Anyone who is legitimately concerned about the life of the fetus should be running away from this shit as fast as humanly possible. Because this law is nothing but vindictive misogyny. Because literally EVERY other person in Texas now has more say about a woman's body than she does. And it's codified into law. To saw they are second-class citizens is putting it mildly.

    ThacoBell
  • Mantis37Mantis37 Member Posts: 1,167
    The Republicans, even in places where they have enacted voter suppression laws, may have reason to regret making abortion an issue for 2022. A lot of politicians who are ostensibly pro-life for the sake of their primary prospects will not relish having to deal with higher electoral turnouts.

    Grond0
Sign In or Register to comment.