Animavore wrote:Boycotting Georgia sounds interesting.

Netflix Silent as Calls for Boycott Over Georgia Abortion Law Grow

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.rolling ... 32632/amp/

It might even work! While there will no doubt be lots of fulminating about bleeding heart liberal Hollywood, at the end of the day, it's a shit load of money that's on the line. Georgia's kicking women where it hurts, and Hollywood's kicking right back in the family jewels.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48242766

Actress and #MeToo activist Alyssa Milano has urged women to take part in a "sex strike" to protest against a new abortion law in the state of Georgia.

"Until women have legal control over our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy," she tweeted.

Go Lysistrata on their asses!

May gentle Love and the sweet Cyprian Queen shower seductive charms on our bosoms and all our person. If only we may stir so amorous a feeling among the men that they stand firm as sticks, we shall indeed deserve the name of peace-makers among the Greeks.

They will probably legalise martial rape. If it's not already.

laklak wrote:"Leave the state" seems to be a valid response to any number of other issues, though. Want an assault rifle but you live in New York? Leave the state. Don't like sanctuary cities? Leave the state. Like to smoke weed but it's not legal where you live? Leave the state. LIve in California and tired of paying 10% of your income in state tax? Leave the state. But somehow "if you want unrestricted access to abortions then leave the state" is somehow sexist or patriarchal or something. Dunno why.

Being forced to give birth or leave the state is definitely sexist, unless you know of men who are able to get pregnant.

I would say it's also patriarchal, since anti-abortion idiocy is all rooted in back-assward, patriarchal religious views and the anachronistic social mores that tend to accompany them.

Of course the situation is sexist, and patriarchal, and the people behind these absurd laws are bigoted, backwards, Christofascist assholes. How the hell else could anyone look at it? How could anyone support a law like this? Fetal heartbeat? Wtf? It doesn't even have a fucking heart at that point, it's got a tube with a bulgy bit that contracts. It might have a closed neural column but no spinal cord, no brain, no liver, or any other goddamn organ and it's about 1/2 an inch long. FFS.

There's how things should be, and how things are. Right now, in the state of Georgia (and Ohio, too), if you want an abortion after somewhere around 6 -8 weeks you're going to have to leave the state. There's no debate on that. It's a fact. They hear a "heartbeat" and they're NOT performing the procedure. Period. Stating that fact is not sexist, nor patriarchal, nor Christofascist, nor is it "insensitive" towards women. God I'm sick of listening to whiny bullshit like that.

Spearthrower wrote:

willhud9 wrote:Nice hand waving.

Laklak’s initial comment was insensitive towards the plight of women. As I’ve pointed out upthread it is massively a sign of male privilege to “point out the facts.”

You in your ignorance may call what I said virtue signally like some conservative rallying against SJW, but I call it having basic human decency to not say stupid things such as “pointing out the facts”

So not one single citation?

Then your angsty little tantrum is dismissed.

Argue with your manufactured phantoms on your own time.

You erect a straw man and expect me to answer it? No thanks.

I told you that Laklaks initial comment was insensitive.

I also followed up with why this justification of pointing out facts is not appropriate.

It is the kind of callous disregard that men have in this situation. Regardless of laklak’s or therapod’s or your true feelings whenever women hear those kind of responses to these kind of laws it shows a lack of genuine empathy regardless of whether you do or do not sympathize with their plight.

Women in general are tired of hearing men say, “Well do this to get around bullshit law” or “move to a different state” or “apply for an id in a different state” etc.

That kind of response just perpetuates male privilege. Period. It serves no bearing in conversation.

We all know the options for women in Georgia. We don’t need a man “telling the facts” as if no one ever thought of that.

So I repeat my initial question: to whom on this forum are you guys just “stating” the facts? All of us here are intelligent enough to know the facts. The remarks are just assholish. Period.

That classic strawman of 'can you establish a single instance of evidence for your accusation?'

When you can back up your shit, I'll read your posts.

My accusation of what? That laklak’s post was insensitive? That it was akin to mansplaining?

You can read it yourself. Page 1 of this thread. Surely I don’t have to hold your hand?

Your post from last night said for me to cite someone saying they thought the bill was okay. I’ve never said that anywhere.

My accusation comes more at the dirth of empathy and the overall sexist lean this overall forum tends to have when women’s rights and feminism are discussed. Sorry if that wasn’t clear

Let's just run a quick reality check (tm).

Post 1: DoctorE cites text about Georgia's bill and includes shocked emoticon.

Post 2: I posted Monty Python vid 'every sperm is sacred'

Post 3: Thomas Eshuis posts surprise they didn't make it a capital offense.

Post 4: Svartalf makes ironic post about Nazgul rescinding Roe v Wade

Post 5: Blackadder posts about Christian Taliban

Post 6: Agi responds to Svartalf's post

Post 7: Svartalf posts about ultra conservatives seeking to turn back the clocks

Post 8: Animavore posts he thought this was about the country of Georgia rather than the US state

Post 9: Svartalf agrees but that it doesn't seem like of a post-Soviet state

Post 10: Agi talks about Supreme Court

Post 11: Animavore posts a twitter capture which brings up the topic of the potential of women being criminalized for traveling outside the state for an abortion, but makes no comment.

Post 12: I ask whether that would even be legal

Post 13: Theropod remarks that he thinks it wouldn't be legal for Georgia to do this and shows there are loopholes anyway.

Post 14: double post

Post 15: Laklak agrees with Theropod's point about it not being legal for Georgia to prosecute something happening in another jurisdiction.

Post 16: tuco expresses surprise about the wording of the tweet

Post 17: I confirm that Theropod's post was what I was questioning, re the legality of Georgia punishing women who travel out of state and whether it would even be enforceable.

Post 18: Agi notes one way Georgia might try but presumably in an ironic way as it's not practical.

Post 19: Seabass agrees that this is a means of getting Roe v Wade challenged.

Post 20: Theropod expresses despair about living in such a state.

Post 21: I respond to Agi saying that Georgia still can't do even the impractical scenario as it's against the law

Post 22: I agree with Seabass' summation of this being an agenda-driven strategy to challenge Roe v Wade.

Post 23: Willhud concurs with the tweet Animavore had posted in #11 which people had been discussing the legality of.

Post 24: Willhud berates people for saying "just go out of state and get an abortion" even though literally no one had said anything of the sort:

willhud9 wrote:I will say the massive privilege though expressed by those saying, "Just go out of state and get an abortion" is disturbing in of itself. Most people have a hard time affording a doctor locally. Youre telling me that these women should just drive 3+ hours to get to a closest Planned Parenthood?

So clearly, it's a strawman as it was not a topic of conversation, and no one had actually said this was the case. No one had said it at all, let alone show it was desirable, ok, or solved any problem. The very first person to forward this notion was Willhud in a post where he tells off people for having expressed this position when no one in the thread actually had.

So yeah, it's pretty fucking clearly virtue-signalling, and ironically, Willhud seems intent on telling everyone off on behalf of pregnant women in Georgia who now can't have an abortion. Thanks for speaking for them Will but perhaps you might want to check in with some of them first to see whether they need your help.

The tail's back wagging the dog again.

If I was as uncharitable as Will, I might suggest that he's seeking to deflect attention from the real story due to some nefarious agenda.

Perhaps an object lesson might be warranted.

willhud9 wrote:I will say the massive privilege though expressed by those saying, "Just go out of state and get an abortion" is disturbing in of itself.

See the bit highlighted in red, Will?

They're called quote marks.

You know what they signify?

That you're quoting someone.

Who were you quoting?

No-one, because no-one said that.

Want to say that it's paraphrasing someone? Well, first of all you shouldn't use quote marks when paraphrasing, else you're either doing it wrong by mistake, or because you intend to misrepresent them, but secondly, you're still going to need to point to a body of text written by someone here which could accurately have been so paraphrased.

I submit that you can't do that, which is why when you were called on it, you started ranting out buzz-words and talking about hidden agendas.

Basically, you're doing the classic argument: motte, therefore bailey.

It's deceitful. I expected more of you. Even if I was naive to do so, I still expect more of you now but not because of naivety, but because you don't get away with peddling shit like this.

willhud9 wrote:My accusation of what? That laklak’s post was insensitive? That it was akin to mansplaining?

You can read it yourself. Page 1 of this thread. Surely I don’t have to hold your hand?

Your post from last night said for me to cite someone saying they thought the bill was okay. I’ve never said that anywhere.

My accusation comes more at the dirth of empathy and the overall sexist lean this overall forum tends to have when women’s rights and feminism are discussed. Sorry if that wasn’t clear

You're so full of fucking shit your eyes are brown, Will. THIS is the only post I made on the first page:

laklak wrote:Thereopod is correct. State law does not apply outside their borders. I can smoke weed in Colorado and Florida can't do shit about it. I would LOVE to see them try to prosecute someone for doing something in another jurisdiction that is perfectly legal there, they'll be slapped down so hard and fast their little redneck heads will spin. Please, do it, not even the current incarnation of SCOTUS would rule in their favor.

WTF is "insensitive" about that?

Go on, fucking quote me - show me where I said women should "just leave the state". Hey, don't restrict yourself to the first fucking page, quote anything I've said in this thread.

Go on, you've been flapping your fucking gums for three pages now, calling me "insensitive" and "disgusting" and "privileged" and "mansplaining", so go ahead and SHOW me where I said anything of the fucking sort.

Otherwise shut the fuck up.

Why didn’t someone tell me I had substituted an “O” with an “A” in my user name? I’d like to think my dementia wasn’t progressing so rapidly, but that’s the tricky part of senility. I must have also forgotten where I mansplained the issue at hand as well. Everyone please overlook my mental deterioration, and pray for me. Next thing you know I’ll be forgetting I reconverted to Christianity. Someone please just put a large bore pistol round through an ear when the time comes. OK? Thanks!

I’m coming home Jebus. Apparently. Streets of gold await!

RS

Another double post. Excuses.

RS

willhud9 wrote:
That kind of response just perpetuates male privilege. Period. It serves no bearing in conversation.

And what use are your stawmen here exactly ? I mean, despite the fact that you misinterpreted some people's comments, what are you doing about this problem ? You're posturing here to defend women's rights, but against what ? Who here agrees with this law ? And what is it going to do against that law, or those who passed it ?

willhud9 wrote:
So I repeat my initial question: to whom on this forum are you guys just “stating” the facts? All of us here are intelligent enough to know the facts. The remarks are just assholish. Period.

Same question to you. Why do you think you need to tell us about women's rights ? You're fighting the wrong people here.

I’m not. This forum time and time again has shown it’s racist and sexist nature over and over again. It’s thinly veiled behind some pretty intellectual liberals. Quite frankly the excuses I’m seeing is pretty laughable and the defensive posturing is not unsurprising.

laklak wrote:

willhud9 wrote:My accusation of what? That laklak’s post was insensitive? That it was akin to mansplaining?

You can read it yourself. Page 1 of this thread. Surely I don’t have to hold your hand?

Your post from last night said for me to cite someone saying they thought the bill was okay. I’ve never said that anywhere.

My accusation comes more at the dirth of empathy and the overall sexist lean this overall forum tends to have when women’s rights and feminism are discussed. Sorry if that wasn’t clear

You're so full of fucking shit your eyes are brown, Will. THIS is the only post I made on the first page:

laklak wrote:Thereopod is correct. State law does not apply outside their borders. I can smoke weed in Colorado and Florida can't do shit about it. I would LOVE to see them try to prosecute someone for doing something in another jurisdiction that is perfectly legal there, they'll be slapped down so hard and fast their little redneck heads will spin. Please, do it, not even the current incarnation of SCOTUS would rule in their favor.

WTF is "insensitive" about that?

Go on, fucking quote me - show me where I said women should "just leave the state". Hey, don't restrict yourself to the first fucking page, quote anything I've said in this thread.

Go on, you've been flapping your fucking gums for three pages now, calling me "insensitive" and "disgusting" and "privileged" and "mansplaining", so go ahead and SHOW me where I said anything of the fucking sort.

Otherwise shut the fuck up.

Oh my bad! You didn’t say that in this thread about an abortion law. You said that in the other thread about the same fucking topic.

Don’t sit there and act like you’ve never said the damn fucking thing. You even later admit you are “just pointing out the facts and reality of it”

Misogyny at its finest.

laklak wrote:Take her to another state and get the abortion. Fuck the Christofacists, what they gonna do about it?

Oh look you did say it.

willhud9 wrote:I’m not. This forum time and time again has shown it’s racist and sexist nature over and over again. It’s thinly veiled behind some pretty intellectual liberals. Quite frankly the excuses I’m seeing is pretty laughable and the defensive posturing is not unsurprising.

Oh get the fuck over yourself.

willhud9 wrote:I’m not. This forum time and time again has shown it’s racist and sexist nature over and over again. It’s thinly veiled behind some pretty intellectual liberals. Quite frankly the excuses I’m seeing is pretty laughable and the defensive posturing is not unsurprising.

Yeah sure, Don Quichotte.

*goes back and looks at the Gillette ad thread*

No it’s pretty clear this forum has a lot of people espousing sexist attitudes towards women or worse an apathy to the whole feminism thing.