Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I actually had to Google the tweet about hamburgers, because I didn't know that it was a thing. Turns out that people are super outraged that he misspelled the word "hamburger". I find that to be the funny/insane thing here. We all misspell words. I'm a writer, and you should see some of the fun and creative ways that I misspell words.

The thing is, we all know that the people who nitpick about spelling and grammar on the internet are the most annoying types of trolls. We all make spelling mistakes online, and we generally assume that it was an innocent mistake (unless we're correcting the spelling/grammar nazis themselves, in which case we burn down their entire internet world based on any mistake we can find). But we also know that any such mistake made by Trump will become a dominant CNN headline for the next week.

Do you realize how many times Trump has used this fact to his advantage? I'm sure he makes mistakes all the time. But it'd be a mistake to think that all of his mistakes were actually mistakes.


Yeah, I do think it'd all be reported differently if other Presidents were in office. Michelle Obama's school lunch plan literally had students collapsing from lack of nutrition, and she was still celebrated for her war against obesity.


The fact is, Trump is known for his fast food habits. His late night McDonald's runs. His addiction to diet cola. I think it was January 2018 when the White House doctor was giving his briefing on Trump's health, and members of the press refused to believe that Trump could eat so much fast food and still be healthy. ( https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/w … mp-illness )

Trump hasn't created an image of being all about five-star restaurants and using champagne for mouthwash every night. He's created the image of being unhealthily reliant on fast food and junk food, yet remaining in remarkably good health for a man his age. It doesn't surprise me at all that his fallback would be fast food, because that's what he enjoys.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to- … 8acd514056

The fact is, people are anti-Trump. He could cure cancer while saving orphans from a burning building, and he'd still be called Hitler because of it. I'm not saying that there isn't a healthy amount of disagreement to be had over his actions or policies, but when the internet is on fire because he misspelled the word "hamburger", I don't think we're in a realm of rational and mature political discourse.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Hmmm, I didn't know all that about fast food.  I figured he'd be someone who'd want fancy food (albeit cooked incorrectly tongue).  Count me in the group that didn't know the man like I thought I did.

953 (edited by Informant 2019-01-15 13:32:07)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I still laugh at the media outrage over Trump's request for an extra scoop of ice cream. I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. smile



Here's the actual CNN report on Scoopgate: https://youtu.be/ixEahmx0Btw

Totally the same coverage that they gave Obama.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It goes back to the blue collar billionaire image he tried to create for himself during the election.  Turns out the reason he ate so much fast food was because those places don’t know who they’re cooking for and generally don’t mess with it. You go to a restaurant where people see Trump ordered something?  There’s no telling what the chefs would put in that food if they’re a Trump hater.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Good to know that as the United States faces judicial lunacy, gerrymandering, the collapse of its foreign relations, a government shutdown with federal workers expected to labour for free, a supposed bid for border 'security' that has TSA agents working for nothing, and an investigation into the president being compromised by Russian intelligence -- well, we can always count on Americans to zero in on the dumbest and most irrelevant piece of trivia they can possibly find and make it their central area of focus.

ireactions cannot stress in the name of all that is holy that no one poster's view, including this one, represents the view of the SLIDERS community.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

If the country, or Trump's presidency were as big of a disaster, or a threat to national security as some would have you believe, I promise you that we wouldn't be talking about his taste in food. Not with a media that is so rabid to get him on something that they have been known to run with stories that have already been retracted by other outlets due to their outright lies.

To be fair to Americans, it isn't "Americans" who zero in on this crap, so much as it is the news media. 99.9% of Americans probably couldn't care less who eats what in the White House. The news media is working overtime to create a narrative that keeps falling apart in their hands, even as they type up the script. And if you think I'm exaggerating the rabid, irrational, idiotic anti-Trump-ness of the media, I will once again point you to the CNN piece on how many scoops of ice cream he wants. A team of trained news reporting professionals spent how much time putting that piece together? And it wasn't even presented as a light-hearted goofball story. It was an actual story!

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The Russia thing continually amuses me.  Mitt Romney was openly mocked in 2012 for saying Russia was a threat to the US.  Four short years later, Russia is suddenly the gravest threat to face America!  The only thing that changed between the two times is that Democrats lost power.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

True.

It reminds me of the Buffy episode, "Gingerbread". Nobody knows what the scandal is, or where it came from, but they're ready to burn people at the stake over it.

Actually, a lot of the world reminds me of "Gingerbread". Totally underrated episode.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Things become threats as needed by politicians.

10 years ago ISIS was barely extant minor ally of al-Qaeda. Six months later they were a grave threat.  In the 2004 presidential election, illegal immigration wasn't important enough to be brought up in three presidential debates or the VP debate.  18 months later it was a "crisis" despite nothing really changing.

There will always be a Goldstein.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

Good to know that as the United States faces judicial lunacy, gerrymandering, the collapse of its foreign relations, a government shutdown with federal workers expected to labour for free, a supposed bid for border 'security' that has TSA agents working for nothing, and an investigation into the president being compromised by Russian intelligence -- well, we can always count on Americans to zero in on the dumbest and most irrelevant piece of trivia they can possibly find and make it their central area of focus.

To be fair, I think we deal with Trump in our own ways.  Some hate, some laugh, some love, some tolerate.  Most of the stuff that you listed is, obviously, more important than hamburgers.  I don't think anyone, even the crazy people on the fringe of either side, would have much to say against that.

But, at the end of the day, it's the news of the day.  The outrage of the day.  Not only is it something that is relateable, but it's something that's new.  Not only are the other issues you spoke about more complicated as issues, their solutions are further away and more complicated themselves.  The Mueller investigation is a big deal to people on both sides, but what am I, a normal American supposed to do about it on a daily basis?  I'm doing the same thing that Congress is doing - waiting until the investigation is over.  Is Trump compromised?  I don't know.  And until I know (or, at least, think I know), then there's nothing I can do.  Same thing with the government shutdown.  I can write letters to my congressmen or drive down to the state capitol to make a big fuss about it, but what is that going to accomplish?  Another letter or email he won't read, or a protest that won't do any good.

There's this thought that things happen because we let them happen.  When, in reality, we're all so separated from our government because things happen because the people we voted for let it happen.  But we don't have 365 elections a year.  We speak when we can and rely on those we elect to speak for us the rest of the time.

It isn't because we don't care.  It's just that there's not much one person can do.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It's okay, Rob. I understand.

**

Mitt Romney was right about Russia. I laughed at him then and I was a dumbass to do so except Russia had yet to target the US electoral system so publicly. Romney was right, Obama was wrong, and Romney was also right when he condemned Trump during Trump's campaign.

That said, there was a curious hypocrisy to Romney calling Trump out for his "greed" given that Romney made his fortune by buying American businesses with borrowed money, then saddling those businesses with the debt of buying them which drove them out of business and their workers out of a job even as he called himself a "job creator."

Anyway. From "Gingerbread":

BUFFY: "My mom said some things to me about being the Slayer. That it's fruitless. No fruit for Buffy."

ANGEL: "She's wrong."

BUFFY: "I battle evil. But I don't really win. The bad keeps coming back and getting stronger. Like that kid in the story, the boy that stuck his finger in the duck."

ANGEL: "Dike. It's another word for dam."

BUFFY: "Oh. Okay, that story makes a lot more sense now."

ANGEL: "Buffy, you know, I'm still figuring things out. There's a lot I don't understand. But I do know it's important to keep fighting. I learned that from you."

BUFFY: "But we never... "

ANGEL: "We never win. We never will. That's not why we fight. We do it because there's things worth fighting for."

962 (edited by Informant 2019-01-16 21:56:02)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

True. But the difference was that Buffy faces real enemies that are heavily researched and known. The mob attacks the vague notion of an enemy, feeding off of the hatred and anger of the person next to them, justifying their actions by saying "everyone knows" that it's the right thing to do. The mob becomes the enemy when they don't care about the reality.

I love that episode. And the toad stone bit with Cordelia is classic.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The story of these MAGA kids is just mind-blowing on so many levels.

First, it shows us that the press doesn't care about facts. They're like fiction writers for old scifi magazines, creating stories around compelling pictures that have been set before them.

Second, it shows how easily the masses are manipulated by the press. The fact that grown adults, many of whom are politician or employed by news outlets, were calling for doxxing or violence against these kids was nothing short of insane. Even if the kids were guilty of saying mean things (which we know they're not), would that justify calling for violence against kids?

Third, it shows that even with raw, simple facts presented to them, completely disproving their stories, some people will hold onto the anger and hatred, because it's what fuels the mob and they need more of it. Now, apparently (in some eyes), it's still okay to call for violence against these kids, because a MAGA hat means that you are harassing people and it's okay to punch anyone wearing those hats.

Fourth, it shows that when presented with actual footage of teens harassing an elderly person, and even trying to smack the man's sign out of his hand, the mob will not show outrage if they don't agree with the elderly person's politics.
https://youtu.be/3Q23xB6Ghm0

This means, it's not any moral high ground that these people stand on. Nothing they believe in, aside from "You are my enemy, and you must suffer." Otherwise, these actions would have been called out from either side.


This is how the mob works. This is why fake news is dangerous. This is why social media is toxic. All of this existed before, of course. However, the ease with which lives can be (and are) destroyed for no reason is astonishing.

This is a clear and simple example of how this all works, but it's the norm for journalism and the mob these days. And both sides have to be called out on this one, because there were many right-wingers who were just as willing to throw these kids to the wolves without investigating the whole story. They were trying to appease the mob as well, but for other reasons. They wanted to gain points by showing how cool they were with calling out the bad guys in their own party. And while I agree with holding your own party accountable when it's called for, the willingness to do so--TO KIDS-- without information was pathetic.


The whole thing makes me sick. It's just disgusting. And while I could hope that it'd be a wake-up call for some, and a lesson to look into facts and evidence a little bit more, I'd be joking if I said that I actually believe that anything productive will come from this.

964 (edited by RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan 2019-01-21 20:59:04)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

When the video and images first came out, it appeared to be an ugly level of disrespect by a particular individual.  But when the full video circulated, it became clear what we had created in our head in building a context to what we saw was false.  Any one who called out the kid should (a) make their audience aware the situation wasn't what it appeared to be (b) say they are sorry for getting it wrong (even though I think the assumptions that were made originally were not unreasonable -- we go about life everyday having to make quick assumptions and most would have drawn the same conclusion in this case.   It's just a situation here where it turns out a portion of the frames can tell a different story than what all the frames do.

Even those who watch all the frames may remain upset at the kids' behavior, but, it was really one kid who was roasted initially for this.  He's got a life to live, and while I wouldn't say, "i'd like my son to act as he did", I also would not say anything he did rises to the level of being called out nationally, or moreover, all that different than how most kids would react in that situation.

So what is disappointing to me, is that the people who complained initially are not doing the right thing and correcting the record.  That is the right thing to do.  For truth's sake, having a commitment to it, and so this story can go away and the kid have his *life* impacted by it less.  Some people are still complaining about the kids.  Guess what, teenage kids are basically the worst when it comes to behavior, so they were acting as teenage boys often do; and moreover, they are taking cues from adults, so if  you don't like the MAGA hat, complain about it to adults, not kids who have worn it based on the permission structure many have given them.  And no, not everyone sees it as bad or offensive as you do, either.  People have different opinions about these things.  I am not saying that doesn't mean there isn't a time to be sensitive to how others feel about symbols, or slogans etc.  But there are times too when that is less clear.

Anyway, we are a broken country that needs to get it's house in order, and I am not sure lunny politicians filled with hate, or only commitment to their own party, is the way to get us there.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I was just reading more of the comments from verified Twitter users, whose comments Twitter refuses to take down, despite their threatening nature. It makes me so mad. This isn't one story, it's our culture now. Those people refuse to acknowledge that the kids were the wronged party, simply because people don't like their hats. Twitter will delete completely non threatening posts from conservatives and even ban the users, but won't even delete threats toward conservative *children*.

These kids are being called white supremacists. They're being compared to the Hitler Youth. They're having their names and faces plastered all over sites that want more info on them, and what's their crime? Wearing a stupid hat to the March for Life! A rally designed to celebrate how sacred every human life is.

We need to be able to talk to those who disagree with us. We need to understand that most people are good and want what they genuinely believe to be the best thing for everyone. This need to demonize every man, woman or child who dares to disagree with you (figurative you, not specifically anyone here) will not lead us anywhere good.

All that said, I do fully believe that there are people in politics, and people in the media who are genuinely bad people. Who want bad things, for selfish reasons. They are dangerous and they're driving a lot of this hatred that we see.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Sooooooo... I have not seen the footage. This is the sort of story I just don’t have the mental bandwidth to engage with right now and I have no opinion. Nevertheless, reading Informant’s post, I had two separate reactions. My first reaction was thinking that OF COURSE Informant would take the side of whoever was white. (Sorry.)

Informant would say he's siding with Facts and if he is, then he may well be right at which point my second thought was: THANK GOD I didn’t weigh in on this situation (and still haven’t) because if I’d gotten it wrong, I’d never hear the end of it from Informant.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

These kids are being called white supremacists

When you pay money to attend a school that allows and even celebrates students wearing blackface to intimidate minority students from other schools, you're going to develop that reputation.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

My first reaction was thinking that OF COURSE Informant would take the side of whoever was white. (Sorry.)

You have issues. Seriously, if this is your gut reaction to any story that you know your masters want you to disagree with, you need deprogramming. You've been trained like a lab rat to not go for the cheese.

For the record, I don't side with whoever is white. I don't care who is white. I side with a ton of black people, but they're all of the race traitors that your side is allowed to use slurs against, so they don't really count. I side with a lot of gay people, but they're all the self-hating traitors who your side is allowed to spit on. I side with a lot of strong, amazing women, but they're all the mindless little whores that your side is allowed to threaten to rape. Hell, I follow and even respect some self-professed liberals, with whom I probably agree on very little... But they're all the alt-right extremists that your side is allowed to threaten with violence, but is most certainly never EVER allowed to actually listen to.

This reaction of yours just once again proves that it never mattered what I actually said to you in any of these conversations. You just talk to the version of me that the media has told you to believe in. You're in a cult, dude. And this isn't about what you believe, it's about what you've been trained not to hear. I've never said a racist word in my life, so how did that reaction end up in your head?


When you pay money to attend a school that allows and even celebrates students wearing blackface to intimidate minority students from other schools, you're going to develop that reputation.


Did you have to stretch before you reached for that justification? Or are you naturally limber? Are you seriously, honestly suggesting that anything that was done to these children was acceptable? And your best, most sincere justification for this was that someone who once did something offensive went to the same school at some point?

You can't see me right now, but I'm totally giving you a golf clap.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

When you pay money to attend a school that allows and even celebrates students wearing blackface to intimidate minority students from other schools, you're going to develop that reputation.


Did you have to stretch before you reached for that justification? Or are you naturally limber? Are you seriously, honestly suggesting that anything that was done to these children was acceptable? And your best, most sincere justification for this was that someone who once did something offensive went to the same school at some point?

You can't see me right now, but I'm totally giving you a golf clap.

So your supposition is that adults can be programmed by the media, but kids can't be programmed by their schools?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Nope. Not even a little. I think kids are programmed by their schools all the time.

My supposition is that a group of kids dressing up at a theme-night basketball game many years ago has nothing to do with the fact that these kids were waiting for a bus, were targeted for harassment by adults, put online and targeted for harassment by more adults (including many prominent media figures), have been doxxed, have been threatened with violence and even received death threats. People who weren't even at the damn event, but who passingly resemble those in the video have had their safety threatened as well.

What I'm saying is that people are insane for targeting these kids. They would have been insane for doing it even if the kids were guilty (which they very clearly and undeniably are not), and they're super extra insane now that we know that the kids are innocent. Many of these people are *still* looking for a reason to cling to their outrage and their threats (while totally ignoring the people in the video who are actually saying hateful, racist, homophobic things) despite the fact that we can clearly see that these kids did nothing wrong.

You are bringing up yet another out of context image, taken of completely different people, years ago, who happened to go to the same school, and you're using that image to justify the harassment and death threats that these kids are receiving. That is not a healthy thought process. I don't wish those things on people that I dislike. I don't like David Hogg, but I don't want him or his family threatened. I might have a slight suspicion that Nancy Pelosi is a vampire, but I don't actually want someone to drive a stake into her heart (wherever she's keeping it stored). Why? Because I'm a rational adult! I am capable of disagreeing with people, or finding their very existence on this planet sickening, without delighting in the idea of them being physically beaten or killed. I'm especially not going to cheer for the threat of physical violence toward kids. KIDS!!!!

Now, if we were talking about child molesters, then fine. I'd be right there with the people who'd want to see them hurt in all kinds of ways. But we're not. We're talking about kids whose only crime was wearing a hat that you don't like. You can't honestly believe that people are justified in treating them like that. And if you do, then... good luck with that. Living with that type of hatred for people isn't healthy for anyone, and it's going to bring absolutely nothing good into your own life.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

When you pay money to attend a school that allows and even celebrates students wearing blackface to intimidate minority students from other schools, you're going to develop that reputation.

Look, I'm inclined to think anyone who wears a MAGA hat and goes to that school is awful, Season 3 awful. But we can't determine whether or not Sandmann harassed Phillips on January 18 at the Lincoln Memorial based on headwear, academic enrollment and events that didn't take place on January 18 at the Lincoln Memorial.

Sandmann could be a racist and bully who burned down my house and stole my car and stabbed my grandmother and drank my last ginger ale, but he could be all of those things while still committing no acts of harassment on that Friday in Washington. And I actually do think Sandmann drank my last ginger ale. Someone did.

If you can contradict Informant's assertions based on the footage, please do; if not, then I don't really see what grounds you (or I) have for disagreement.

Informant wrote:

You have issues. Seriously, if this is your gut reaction to any story that you know your masters want you to disagree with, you need deprogramming. You've been trained like a lab rat to not go for the cheese.

For the record, I don't side with whoever is white. I don't care who is white. I side with a ton of black people, but they're all of the race traitors that your side is allowed to use slurs against, so they don't really count. I side with a lot of gay people, but they're all the self-hating traitors who your side is allowed to spit on. I side with a lot of strong, amazing women, but they're all the mindless little whores that your side is allowed to threaten to rape. Hell, I follow and even respect some self-professed liberals, with whom I probably agree on very little... But they're all the alt-right extremists that your side is allowed to threaten with violence, but is most certainly never EVER allowed to actually listen to.

This reaction of yours just once again proves that it never mattered what I actually said to you in any of these conversations. You just talk to the version of me that the media has told you to believe in. You're in a cult, dude. And this isn't about what you believe, it's about what you've been trained not to hear. I've never said a racist word in my life, so how did that reaction end up in your head?

Informant, I apologize. It was a reaction. It wasn't a position. "OF COURSE Informant would take the side of whoever was white, he always sides with cops when any cop shoots a black guy. Oh. Facts are on his side in this one. Oh, thank GOD I didn't weigh in or I'd never hear the end of it." (Looks like I will anyway.)

I thought it was funny to point out my immediate thought process, a process which I withheld from public consumption until afterwards. I wouldn't present my immediate reactions as actual opinions because such reactions aren't always informed or correct. I thought it was self-mocking. Instead, I have hurt your feelings. I'm sorry. I don't think you're a racist. I don't really know what I think of you, I find you something of a wildcard.

You're the guy who recognizes Bryan Singer as a sexual assaulter but doesn't see Donald Trump as the same. You said Henry Cavill couldn't play Superman because he was American; now you find Cavill's performance excellent. I'm never sure about anything with you and my mental image of you is often contradicted by actual reality.

I feel like there might be one key incident to explain you to my personal satisfaction, but I've never figured it out – your reaction to the character of God on SUPERNATURAL in "Don't Call Me Shurley." You asserted that God in this episode was merely pretending to be depressed to spur other characters to action. The episode, however, is quite clear that God is being entirely candid about his exhaustion and exasperation and subsequent episodes reinforce this.

You had a view of God; the onscreen depiction contradicted your view, so you declared God to be lying in order to match your personal framework for the character. It says something, I'm just not sure what and may spend the rest of eternity contemplating what your deal is based on this anecdote. Regardless, I certainly respect your analysis, writing and thought processes even if I often find the end results ones that I reject.

And regarding this matter in general: at the outset, my instinctive response was to think Nick Sandmann a bully based on the images, screenshots and articles.  But I didn't say what I thought because I don't trust my reactions to screen captures -- not after a deeply unpleasant incident with Kari Wuhrer.

Back in 1998, before Season 4 had aired, I raged about Wuhrer's inability to hold a rifle convincingly and posted a mocking screenshot of her ineptitude on her fan site, screeching about how she clearly didn't take her profession seriously and didn't care about the show and was part of the all-out assault on SLIDERS' values, storytelling, legacy, platform and cast.

Wuhrer responded and apologized (yes, really) but noted that as an actress, she depended on the on-set weapons handler to show her how to handle guns for that scene; she couldn't simply summon that knowledge out of thin air. She also said she'd been working with the new writers on making Maggie's character more likable and would be grateful if SLIDERS fans gave her a chance to change our minds. (Actually, thinking back, her agent may have been typing all this.)

During Season 4, fans were livid over Jerry's hungover performances and screencapped frames where he looked sleepy -- except some of these supposedly dead-eyed images were sometimes taken from episodes where he was actually pretty good (that week) but blinking at an opportune moment for a mocking still.

In a former iteration of this forum, a poster who went by "breederbutter" called Cleavant "the racial hire" and a terrible actor who should never have gotten top billing and selected a Season 4 clip to indicate Cleavant's bad acting -- a clip where Cleavant's reaction to a squib for a gunfight was slightly muted. It's a selective shot that doesn't reflect Cleavant's skills at all.

And in this recent situation, we have people reading a lot into Sandmann's facial expression in a select frame that may or may not reflect the subject's inner thinking or intentions. Sandmann has posted an explanation (which I skimmed and which others have found credible with the full footage).

My opinion? I don't have one -- I shouldn't be offering any opinion until I have an hour and 46 minutes to watch the footage and I'm not sure I want that to be my job. If Informant's watched the footage in full and thinks Sandmann's personal account is reasonable and correct, then I'm going to defer to him on this one. If pilight wants to watch the footage and debunk Sandmann's account, please do, but I am getting the sense from the various mea culpas that history will be on Informant's side this time.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

With regard to the Lincoln Memorial incident, I’m reminded of an old Mark Twain quote:

“Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”

It started with the Black Israelites (so named because they wear black garb) who were trying to incite everyone at the event by throwing insults at everyone they saw.  The kids in the MAGA hats responded to them by starting a school chant to try to drown out the Black Israelites (the chant becoming so animated that one kid jumping up and down took his shirt off).  Native American Nathan Phillips then began beating his drum in response to the kids’ chants; and the kids continued their chant adding tomahawk chop motions in response (much like you often saw at Braves baseball games).  Phillips then walked into the group of kids and started beating his drum within inches of the face of one of the kids - an aggressive movement.

In my opinion, they all looked like fools.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

TemporalFlux wrote:

With regard to the Lincoln Memorial incident, I’m reminded of an old Mark Twain quote:

“Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”

It started with the Black Israelites (so named because they wear black garb) who were trying to incite everyone at the event by throwing insults at everyone they saw.  The kids in the MAGA hats responded to them by starting a school chant to try to drown out the Black Israelites (the chant becoming so animated that one kid jumping up and down took his shirt off).  Native American Nathan Phillips then began beating his drum in response to the kids’ chants; and the kids continued their chant adding tomahawk chop motions in response (much like you often saw at Braves baseball games).  Phillips then walked into the group of kids and started beating his drum within inches of the face of one of the kids - an aggressive movement.

In my opinion, they all looked like fools.

I still can't find the will to watch the footage, but TF made me think of this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YClAMYTEuZ0

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

I still can't find the will to watch the footage, but TF made me think of this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YClAMYTEuZ0

lol

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant, I apologize. It was a reaction. It wasn't a position. "OF COURSE Informant would take the side of whoever was white, he always sides with cops when any cop shoots a black guy. Oh. Facts are on his side in this one. Oh, thank GOD I didn't weigh in or I'd never hear the end of it." (Looks like I will anyway.)

Apology accepted. You just have to understand that this is the battle that we have to fight every day. There's this narrative that the right-wingers are the bad guys because they're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Even now, we have people saying that those kids deserved to be harassed and threatened because their hats are the same as white hoods, or the fact that they were at the March for Life makes them Nazis, or whatever. (and again, this is why the "punch a Nazi" movement sounds great on paper, but is actually a serious, dangerous thing. We're not actually talking about real Nazis 99% of the time)

Even on this board, it's been implied that I'm all of those things, and it's a hurdle that needs to be overcome if the conversations that need to take place can take place. The truth is, there are very few actual white supremacists, and none of them are embraced by the masses on either side. The need to put that label on people (or calling them sexist, homophobic, etc) is a way of shutting down the conversation without having to come up with an actual viewpoint.

I get that you probably don't believe that I'm a Nazi, but there are still those thoughts that cross your mind, like the thing with cops shooting black kids. I don't always support the cops, because sometimes the cops are wrong. However, I look at each case as its own thing, and I make my judgments accordingly. As with the MAGA kids, the narrative in the press is rarely the whole truth, or even any version of the truth. We just happened to have a 2 hour video that showed the true story this time, and it was undeniable at that point. But there are countless stories where the answers aren't as easy, and when it comes down to documents, various recordings, testimonies, etc, peoples' eyes glaze over and they usually stick to whatever the news tells them to believe.

Hell, I have a hard time getting anyone to tell me what they think "Russian collusion" actually means, but they sure as hell know that Trump needs to be impeached for it, and they'll punch any Nazi that says otherwise.

If I seem super defensive about this, it's because this is the fight that needs to be fought. We need people to listen to what others are saying, instead of projecting images onto the opposition. We need to have conversations that make us ask questions about what we believe, instead of just taking the word of whatever talking head we saw on the news. I forget who it was that said it, but someone once said that if you can't make the best argument against what you believe, you can't really know what you believe.

If I'm a wildcard, it's because I just want the information. I won't believe a story unless I see solid evidence for it. I have no loyalty to Trump or any other politician, or pundit, or website. Even if I don't have all of the evidence and I form an opinion based on my gut, I have to be willing to accept when I'm wrong (and I was wrong about Cavill).


One of my favorite movies is Signs. no matter how many times I watch it, I always see something new and interesting in the movie. But, while most people will tell you that the movie is about an alien invasion, I would argue that the movie is about demons. In another Shyamalan movie, The Happening, it's explained that when something happens, people will come up with theories and they will tell you that they know what's happening, but the truth is that there's often a huge difference between what you're told and what's real. Sometimes people don't know what's really going on, and they make up easy answers to comfort themselves.
With Signs, we're told what's happening on the news and with books that suggest that it's an alien invasion. But does that mean that we *know* what's really happening? We don't actually see a space ship. We don't actually see aliens coming down from space and telling us what they want. What we see are people, grasping for answers in the only way they know how. but ultimately, the movie is about a minister who is having a crisis of faith, and most of the symbolism of the movie is based around that theme (water is a form of purification, often used in baptism, for example).

We could apply this to Supernatural and God/Chuck as well. We're always told that he is a deadbeat that abandoned everyone, but we see him show up when he is needed, and we've seen him sitting in the back of the room, watching the Supernatural story unfold on stage when they did the musical episode. He wrote every story that Sam and Dean were featured in, so he clearly didn't abandon the world, as we have been told over and over again by different characters. He just didn't always do what they wanted him to do. Their lack of faith in him comes from the fact that they didn't get their way. (I'd have to rewatch the specific episode that you mentioned before I could comment on that, so I'll just leave this as a vague discussion of the character overall)


This is basically how I watch the news these days. There's the story that I'm being told, and then there's the story that's not being told. A lot of the time, the details that aren't being reported will change the entire story, and they're being left out because they don't fit the narrative that the media or the politicians want to create.

If I'm a wildcard (and I've never considered myself to be one), I think it's because everyone should be, to some degree. We should consider all of the facts available and form our opinions accordingly. We should discuss all of the ideas and angles, and see what makes the most sense. We'll still disagree, because people have different views on core subjects, but we should at least work to understand the other side as much as possible. To be able to argue for the other team in a debate (which I've actually done online, when people have failed to make the best argument against me. It was fun.)


The MAGA hat story tells us a lot. It tells us that people are willing to believe what's easy. It tells us that people on both sides were willing to condemn people (children, no less) based on what Twitter told them to believe. For some, it was because they were the enemy and it's always a good idea to destroy the enemy, and for those on the right, it was because they wanted to earn points by showing how willing they were to condemn people on their own side. All of these people just wanted points in whatever stupid game we're playing in this world.
What they all failed to do was look for facts. Gather information. The news channels that covered the story didn't seek out all angles before they ran with the story, they went with it because it was the right image for the story that they were going to tell anyway. Nobody who rushed to join the mob cared about what really happened, or the real lives that were being impacted by them.

And this is just one clear example, but it's the same thing that happens every single day. People believe what they want to believe, whether the facts support the story or not. People want to please the mob and collect their points, like Bryce Dallas Howard in that Black Mirror episode, but much uglier.


Sorry that I'm rambling. I know that you didn't rush to judge, and kudos for that. But this story just highlights a much larger problem in our society. It's something that I've been trying to point out for a long time.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

At this point, I would like to ask Slider_Quinn21 to step in and congratulate me on having turned yet another conversation back to SLIDERS even when SLIDERS had absolutely nothing to do with any of it at the outset. I mean, I know he previously identified the last high point as when I described THE WOLVERINE (2013) as a Season 5 situation where the original cast was gone and all that was left was the one guy defined by how he didn't fit in. ("Gotta say, I really respect ireactions' ability to turn every and any conversation back to SLIDERS," he remarked.) But I feel this is a new pinnacle of turning the exchange back to a middling-to-poor TV show of the 1990s.

977 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2019-01-25 11:10:12)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Funny thing, I actually thought that when I read it smile  You never cease to amaze.

Congratulations!

And I'd like to also congratulate you all for being the only people on opposite sides of this debate (in the world) to acknowledge your own faults and the faults of the side you are on.  This whole government shutdown is full of lauded villains, and as soon as I find a hero, I'll let everyone know.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

There's a government shutdown?

smile

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

This might have fit in better with the Arrowverse thread, but it's political in nature. Since the Season 2 finale, SUPERGIRL has raised a question it hasn't been able to answer: where is Jeremiah Danvers? Where the hell has Dean Cain been?

His character was introduced as Kara's foster father in the pilot, thought dead in the present day, revealed to be alive in Season 2, exposed as being in league with Cadmus, an anti-alien terrorist group, for reasons unknown, aside from a hint that Lillian Luthor was building something for him in exchange for his help.

Jeremiah didn't appear in the Season 2 finale when the Cadmus arc was resolved and a defeated Lillian Luthor said that she didn't know where he was. Cain never returned to SUPERGIRL. Seasons 3 - 4 have acknowledged Jeremiah's existence without indicating his whereabouts and neither production nor Dean Cain have publically addressed his absence.

Why? I've heard that it's because during Season 2, Cain publically supported Trump in the election. And even though he was contracted as a guest star, production decided not to have him on set again after Season 2's fifteenth episode and cut all ties with him. They didn't want Cain associated with the SUPERGIRL brand, a brand that would later take a hit worse than anything Cain might have inflicted when showrunner Andrew Kreisberg was investigated for sexual harassment and fired off all his shows.

I don't know how I feel about it.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It’s a shame, but not surprising.  Another similar example is Tim Allen’s “Last Man Standing”.  I don’t watch the show, but it was successful on ABC from what I understand.  Then suddenly it’s cancelled - the only real explanation being that Tim Allen was conservative.  The show moves to Fox and is a continued success.

Hollywood cuts its nose off to spite its face.  It’s become less a business and more of an overt political propaganda movement as time has marched on.

On a personal note, I’ve met Dean Cain in person.  He is one of the nicest and most humble people I’ve met; and if he was covering his true self by acting, then he deserves an Oscar.  How anyone could hate the guy enough to push him off is beyond me.

http://i66.tinypic.com/2m2wfn7.jpg

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Short response:

I think you do know how you feel about it, in your gut.

If his only offense was what he believes, and he lost his job because he voted for the wrong guy, do you think that's justified? Is it forward-thinking? Is it an example of tolerance? Is it the direction that you want the world to move in, going forward?





Muuuuuuch longer response (read this one after taking a few moments to consider the short response):


Look... Supergirl is a far left show, run by far left people, starring far left people. Not liberals. Liberals have their opinions on things, but can be reasoned with. I don't agree with liberals, but I can usually get where they're coming from. The far left is something else entirely, and it's the brand of politics that Hollywood is based on. It's the reason why so many young conservatives remain in the closet about their political opinions. In Hollywood, you can be a child molester and receive an Academy Award, complete with standing ovation, but if you're an outspoken conservative, they will do everything in their power to destroy you. The far left is not about tolerance. It's not about inclusivity. It's about being what they want you to be, or being nothing. They will support an Antifa member smacking someone in the head with a bike chain, as long as that person voted for the other guy.

It's a toxic mentality, which is currently controlling the narrative in the media. It's the news. It's what's in primetime. It's late night talk shows. Again, I refer you back to the "punch a Nazi" line, which was featured in the crossover last year, and has been repeated over and over again in reference to children who were wearing the wrong hat.

The toxic left is as ugly as the crazy extreme right. The difference is, the crazy right isn't mainstream. The crazy right isn't running every show on TV, including the news.

There was a story a few years ago, when True Blood was on the air. I didn't watch the show, but I followed this news story and the discussion around it, because it was interesting. Basically, they wanted to have a character who had been in a hetero relationship up until this point enter into a homosexual relationship, complete with the show's typical sex scenes. The actor who played this character, Luke Grimes, said that he was uncomfortable with performing those scenes. He didn't object to others performing those scenes, he just didn't want to do them himself. This led to him leaving the show and the role being recast. You'd think this would be the end of the story and no big deal. Creative differences, or whatever. Happens all the time.
Except, people from the show (actors and I believe producers as well) started talking to the press about Grimes, and calling him homophobic for not wanting to perform those scenes. In the fandom, people were declaring him a bigot and a homophobe, and were saying that it's not an actor's job to say no. It's an actor's job to perform what's in the script. And there was remarkably little said in support of his decision.
To be clear, this was not the original character description, or what he signed on to play. It was a change that they discussed with him and he decided not to go through with. He did not slam the show. He did not use any slurs. He decided that he was personally uncomfortable performing gay sex scenes, for his own personal reasons. Could be religion, or it could be that he was horribly raped by a man as a child. I don't know. I don't care. It's his personal boundary, and if he just decided that he didn't want to spend 12 hours a day simulating sex with a dude, I think that's his call. All actors should draw that line for themselves, because things turn bad when they don't. Doesn't have to be the same line, but there should be a line of some sort. Some actors could turn down roles that portray conservatives in a positive light, and I think that's their right. They should not be shamed in the press by the production, simply for stepping back.

The problem was, his personal boundary wasn't on-message. His personal boundary, which he set for himself and nobody else, was problematic. In other words, he should shut up and do what he's told. This was a few years ago, and things weren't nearly as publicly insane as they are now, but it shows that Hollywood has been this way for a long, long time. If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem. And yet, again, child molesters aren't always considered part of the problem.

Hollywood is cancer. I love the craft of movie making, and I think that it can produce truly beautiful things. But that industry is just cancer.


In regards to Dean Cain, I think they probably didn't want him there. But there's also a good chance that the environment wasn't to his liking either. He's a good guy, and I don't think that he would attack someone for what they believe. If he did, I'm sure that we'd know about it by now. I'm sure that he's not losing sleep over Supergirl. He is always working, and most of his projects are outside of the normal Hollywood environment. I'm sure he's doing just fine.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Back when I was doing research for the REWATCH PODCAST, I did a pretty deep dive into Dean Cain for LOIS AND CLARK. The only red flag I found on him: an ex-girlfriend accused him of philandering, abuse and drug addiction as part of a nasty custody battle for their son. Cain denied the abuse and immediately agreed to regular blood tests and was ultimately granted sole custody.

Numerous ex-'girlfriends' came to bat for him, saying that Cain had always been very upfront that he was a very busy TV star looking to have casual sex without a serious relationship. Also, Cain had stopped dating and also stopped accepting acting roles when his son was born, electing to spend his extra leisure time with his son and live off his savings for a time to be a father. The pregnancy had been unplanned. Cain hadn't been looking to start a family with a random hookup. His immediate reaction was to basically quit life as a swinging single actor to be a full-time dad.

During this time, I was also reading all the scripts for LOIS AND CLARK and comparing them to the aired episodes. Cain's behaviour was extremely unusual for a leading Hollywood actor and the star of a TV show. Cain had a tendency to insert unscripted pauses into his dialogue -- to give other actors verbal reactions to his character that weren't originally written. Cain had a tendency to give his lines to other actors. As someone who has watched William Shatner and Adam West blatantly perform over their co-stars and guest-stars' dialogue, I have a lot of respect for Cain's behaviour on sets and if he brought this same generosity to the SUPERGIRL set, then there was no cause to dismiss him.

Furthermore, as lovely as it'd be to think that Cain was a Trump supporter and unwelcome on a woke, progressive, forward-thinking show that champions refugees, LGBTQ rights, feminism and wokeness, SUPERGIRL's first two and a half seasons were run by Andrew Kreisberg. That's sexual harasser Andrew Kreisberg who has been fired off his own show for abuse, assault and who knows what else. If there is a moral high ground of wokeness, SUPERGIRL was not on it when they told Cain his services were no longer required.

And from my standpoint, as all of you know, nothing annoys me more than unfinished stories, so much so that I had to finish SLIDERS' story twice. My feeling is that having hired Dean Cain and created an arc for him, SUPERGIRL had an obligation to its fans to complete that arc. They didn't. Admittedly, the person who would have kicked Cain off the show has been kicked off himself and while I dislike the action of voting for Trump, "Trump voter" is not a full character description whereas "sexual assaulter" is pretty comprehensive.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The thing to keep in mind is, the wokeness is an act. It's marketing, both for the entertainment industry and for politicians. Usually, it's a way of breaking up the audience into separate herds that can be easily wrangled. That's why you'll see comments about how gay people should vote, or black people should vote, when neither of those descriptors has anything to do with someone's thinking or beliefs.

So wokeness isn't a moral high ground. It's a club. One step out of line and you lose your membership.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Okay, so this hasn't been a good year for the left side of the spectrum, thus far. We have they calling for physical violence against kids, we have them bullying a little kid who was at the State of the Union specifically because he was being bullied, we have a legitimately crazy politician calling for the elimination of airplanes and farting cows (no joke or exaggeration here), and we have what seems to be a pretty solid chunk of politicians openly admitting to dressing in blackface costumes (and I mean real blackface, and not the Jimmy Fallon/Joy Behar kind).

I could probably pick any one of those topics and run with it for a while, but I wanted to discuss something a little bit less "heavy". So...





Abortion!


As anyone who has been following my comments for the past 20 years can tell you, I'm opposed to abortion in general. My position hasn't changed much over the years. However, another thing that you will have heard me say over the years is that a person should be able to argue the other side. You should always know the best argument for the other side, because you can't really know what you believe if you aren't willing to look at the whole issue. And for a long time, this was working for me. Now, I am struggling to understand the other side.

Let's map this out. (I'm not using any specific dates, just general ideas of the timeline)

2000 - The general (though not universal) argument from the pro-abortion side of the debate was that abortion wasn't ending a human life. It was ending a clump of cells that could potentially become human life at some point. There was no consciousness, there was no viability outside of the womb. It simply was not a life, and until that potential life became a life, the mother should have the right to decide whether or not she wanted to carry that child to term. It was her body.

2010 - The argument evolved over the years, as our understanding of a baby's development and our overall medical capabilities advanced. By this point, most people that I encountered had dropped the "clump of cells" argument and had adopted the "parasite" argument. This being that yes, the unborn baby is technically a human life, but it was entirely dependent on the mother to sustain that life, and she had the right to decide whether or not she wanted to put her body through carrying that baby to term. She wasn't beholden to the child and the child didn't have the right to demand the woman's willingness to be used as an incubator. Those with this opinion usually believed that a child at the legally-aborted stage was still too young to be conscious or aware, or what they would consider "life", though they understood that it was technically alive in a scientific sense. Ultimately though, it came down to the fact that it was the woman's body and her choice.


And with these arguments, I strongly disagree, but I understand the position. What it seemed to come down to was one side advocating for the baby and one side advocating for the woman. And while I personally believe that what has occurred over the years with abortion is nothing short of an atrocity, it was at least something that I understood on some disconnected level.


2019 - We have people standing and cheering for the killing of fully viable, fully developed babies. This is no longer about a clump of cells, or the mother's body. We have human beings who could live outside of the womb, being killed for no reason other than the fact that someone wants them dead. Something that would have people brought up on murder charges two hours later.
And I get that the argument is that it's about the life of the mother, but that's not what it's about. A C-section is about the life of the mother, because that's the best course of action for those situations. There is no reason to kill the baby. And you could say that it's for babies that are going to die anyway, but that's not what these new policies are about. They've been expanded to the point where the woman's stress would be counted as a good enough reason to kill a fully developed baby.

We even have people talking about birthing a child and keeping it comfortable while it's fate is discussed by doctors and the mother.


I'm disgusted. This isn't unusual for an abortion discussion, but with this one I don't even have the luxury of knowing the logic behind the support for this evil. And I don't get why anyone with a soul would stand and cheer for it. And I don't get how anyone who claimed to be fighting for the health of the mother constantly supports reducing regulations on the conditions under which these acts are carried out. We're talking about pretty invasive procedures under the best of circumstances, and yet those who keep pushing the boundaries of these laws keep pushing for less and less regulation. The people who used to say that they didn't want to see back alley abortions being performed are inching ever closer to that very thing!

And what has me completely baffled at this point is that the dude who was talking about killing the kid whose sleeping in the other room is making more headlines for his 30 year old racist costumes and nickname. Which is bad, don't get me wrong. But it's not "infanticide" bad.


So help me out here, because it's a sad day when the farting cow thing makes more sense to me than the current leftist position on late term abortions. I want to know if there is a logical point of view here, but I haven't heard any. There is simply no reason to kill a baby that can be born and live outside of the womb. Killing that baby does absolutely nothing to save the life of the mother.


A long while back (early 2000's, if I recall, but I'm not sure), there was an article about a professor. I think he was at Princeton, but that part's not relevant. Anyway, he was arguing that newborn babies weren't really alive because they weren't aware enough to qualify as life, in his opinion. So basically, he was cool with abortion up to a year after birth (or something along those lines. It was a long time ago). At the time, this wasn't even as shocking as it was ridiculous. People could laugh off the concept, because it was so absurd and he was just a crazy man who should never be allowed near children.

Today, he's about normal for the far left. Mind you, I don't think that everyone on the left agrees with these policies. I'm not going to use this as a means of dehumanizing everyone who disagrees with me, because I think the last number I saw was something like 80% of Americans oppose late term abortion. However, there are clearly people who think that this is an acceptable practice. I don't get that. I don't understand how any people are cheering for it. Can someone help me understand?

From a politician side, I get it. If I'm a far left politician, I push for these things so that Trump eventually pushes back. Even better if the republicans try to push new restrictions on abortion, because then it becomes a huge platform in the next election. What I don't understand is how any normal citizen would support this. That's the part I need help with.

Sorry if I'm rambling. I'm trying to be more logical than emotional about this right now, and my efforts aren't entirely working.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I cannot stress enough in the name of the Professor's slide-rule, Rembrandt's AIDS ribbons and Jerry O'Connell's damaged liver that the views in any one post in this thread do not reflect those of Sliders.TV as a whole.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

I cannot stress enough in the name of...Jerry O'Connell's damaged liver.

https://i0.wp.com/bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/piranha3d.jpg

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

I cannot stress enough in the name of the Professor's slide-rule, Rembrandt's AIDS ribbons and Jerry O'Connell's damaged liver that the views in any one post in this thread do not reflect those of Sliders.TV as a whole.


True. I take full responsibility for any post that suggests that a fully formed and functioning human baby should not be partially birthed, only to have its head cut open and its brain sucked out at the last second.
I take responsibility for also opposing the method wherein a fully formed and functioning human is poisoned with a drug that will bring about a massive heart attack, then either birthed normally (though dead), or dismembered during birth.
I take responsibility for any suggestion that there is no situation wherein this would have to happen in order to save the life of the mother, because the mother is still enduring the birthing process regardless of whether or not they kill the fully formed and functioning child.
I take responsibility for the suggestion that a C-section is the proper course of action when the life of the mother is in danger, just because it's the fastest, safest option.
I take responsibility for any and all suggestions that a child who manages to survive such a procedure and who manages to survive outside of the womb should be given the same respect and proper medical care that any human being deserves when they are in distress.
I take full responsibility for suggesting that any environment that offers such invasive medical procedures should be held to the same medical standards as the places that provides colonoscopies or mole removals.
And finally, I take responsibility for any suggestion that the killing of a child who has actually been born and is resting comfortably in the other room would by definition be infanticide.


I apologize if there was any misunderstanding in regards to my ownership of these comments, and hope that I did not offend any passersby who are in favor of the above-stated actions (as long as we don't do any of it to rabbits, because that'd be animal cruelty and nobody wants to hurt bunnies, so I don't care if I offend the people who want to hurt cute bunnies).

In the future, please consider any comments posted by me to be my own personal comments, and not the comments of anyone else (unless otherwise stated or quoted). I am merely seeking to understand the other side of the argument as best I can, and hope that we can have a calm and rational discussion in this thread.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant is perfectly welcome to share his views and others are welcome to disagree. But me -- I just don't think the world needs me (or anyone incapable of getting pregnant) to offer an opinion on abortion. I am going to focus on what really matters, on a mission that is truly for me and me alone -- I must destroy April Fools Day, put it in the ground and dig it back up just to shoot it dead.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I am specifically talking about fully formed children who no longer depend on a woman's body for their survival. It has nothing to do with whether or not we can get pregnant. It has to do with whether it is acceptable to kill a fully formed child for no good reason. No medically necessary reason. No issues with the woman's body (the kid is coming out either way. We're just talking about whether we should pop it open and suck out its brain first).

And I'm also talking about the fact that people cheering for such things, even if they do think it should be legal, is disgusting and not just a little bit evil.

The matter of who should be allowed to discuss what is a whole separate topic. Spoiler alert: I think everyone can have an opinion on everything. I would never tell a woman to sit down and keep her mouth shut while the men talk, and I'd expect the same respect in return.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant is absolutely free to share his views and conspiracy theories and whatnot, but I personally can’t think of a worse way to spend a Sunday than talking to Informant (or any man, really) about abortion. I’m going to spend Sunday the way God intended — trying to figure out how to get this possibly useless Android TV Box remote control to work with Android (which was, last I checked, still a touchscreen operating system) while listening to my niece talk about the 300th episode of SUPERNATURAL.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Why make a post specifically about not wanting to take part in this conversation?

And really, seriously, please explain to me how the abortion of a fully formed human being is a women-only issue. As I said, I want to understand the other side. So if you think that I shouldn't have a say because I am identifying as a man at the moment, I'd love to know why. I could understand-but-disagree with that argument when it comes to abortions wherein the baby is dependent on the mother's body for its survival, but this isn't that. This isn't a women's issue. Part of this debate is about whether or not to kill a baby that is in an entirely different room than the mother. If we don't count babies as alive when they're fully developed and functional members of society, when exactly do we start the clock?

I assume you've seen, or held a newborn baby at some point in your life, right? Are you telling me that you'd have no opinion on the subject of someone stabbing them in the head, because it's woman's work to think about baby stuff like that?


I get it if you don't want to discuss the topic. It's not a great topic to discuss. But if you're going to reply just to imply that I don't have a right to an opinion, because my role in all of this is just to look pretty and make sandwiches, please at least explain why.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I cannot stress enough in the name of all that is holy that Informant’s views to which he is entitled and welcome to voice do not represent those of Sliders.tv as a whole.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Did I even express a view since the last time you posted that disclaimer? If you'd like, I could just add the disclaimer to my signature in every post.


But for the record, my views do represent the community as a whole. Sorry.

Administrator's note: ireactions here. I don't like to insert myself into other people's posts, but Informant has no authority to speak for this community and I'm going to ask that this part of his post be seen as a joke. Thank you.

Thus far, I'm the only one whose offered any thoughts. In the absence of other intelligent positions, my views clearly fill the vacuum. I'm thinking of creating a merch store of official Sliders fan community viewpoints, with mugs and t-shirts featuring some of my best quotes.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant, you're on the wrong forum if you're looking for a cogent discussion about abortion. But I will say this - the debate coming out of Virginia is bizarre for all parties.

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Yeah, I think I might just stop with political discussion here. There was a lively political crowd back in the day, and it was a good way to push and pull between views. Now, not so much. Probably best to keep things limited to entertainment topics.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant's views -- on anything -- do not represent this community as a whole and if he wishes to falsely present himself as some sort of spokesperson for Sliders.tv, he will not be doing it on the Sliders.tv message board.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'll throw in my two cents just to do it.  My views don't represent anything.

Three months ago, my wife had a miscarriage.  The baby/zygote/clump of cells/etc was like 10 weeks.  But for a brief time between our first ultrasound and our second, she had a heartbeat.  I say "she" because we'd decided that she was a girl with no reasoning to base that on.  I didn't cry when it happened because I know in my brain that it wasn't really aware of anything and didn't exist long enough to cry over.  I was sad, and she was very sad.  But we'll try again and hopefully have a baby come all the way to term.  But in my heart, every once in a while, I get very sad at the thought that we had a child and she died.  That maybe she was aware and was trying to grow and just couldn't.  That makes me sad.  Is my brain right or is my heart right?  I don't know. 

I tend to land on the same side of the abortion fence as ireactions.  I won't ever have the ability to make a decision on an abortion so I try to stay out of it.  It isn't that I think men don't deserve an opinion, but I feel like my decision has less weight to it because it's not a problem I'd ever have to directly deal with.  It'd be like me having a strong opinion on some sort of military issue for troops in Syria.  I'm not going there, I don't know what it feels like to be there, and I feel like I shouldn't speak.

I do feel like some women feel very powerless, and this is an issue they feel like they have some control over.  "You may control the White House and Congress and the military and the world, but I'll be damned if you control my body."  That's just my thinking - I haven't had anyone confirm that.

I'll leave with an anecdote.

Anecdote - I spoke with a female friend a couple years ago about this topic.  I didn't say much but I did ask this.  If Star Trek-like transporter technology existed that could take an unwanted baby (at any point of development) and transport it safely from the woman's body to some sort of other place (another viable uterus, some sort of incubator, etc), would that solve the problem?  The baby would be safe, the woman would be safe, and everything would be great, right?

She said no.  It'd still be invasive.  It's still the woman's right to end the pregnancy her own way if she wants.  So I think, as much as it's about safety, it's about control. 

But that's just one anecdote.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Three months ago, my wife had a miscarriage.

This is the saddest thing I have ever read on this forum. I'm sorry to hear this.

Ahem. Slider_Quinn21's views are his own and in no way represent the consensus of this forum were such a thing even to blah blah blah. I'm sorry this happened, Rob. I was going to make this joke about how Batman not only brings out your hatred of old people but of short people as well in the GOTHAM thread, but -- I'll save it for later.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Three months ago, my wife had a miscarriage.

It breaks my heart to hear this. I'm so sorry for you and your wife.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I sincerely appreciate it, but I wasn't trying to bring the room down.  I'm just bringing in my perspective since there was a new layer added recently.  She had what's called a "missed miscarriage" where the baby is no longer alive, but the body doesn't know it.  When that happens, you essentially get an abortion.  She took pills to take care of what needs to be taken care of so we could get her body back on track.

And let me tell you....it *sucked*.  For me, it was just the mental parts of it.  For her, it was *everything*.  So while I 100% agree that some of the people on the pro-choice side are cavalier about it, I assure you that the reality of the situation is quite horrible.  The day itself was an absolute mess - she was in agony for a couple of hours as everything happened.  Then there were weird things that happened afterward.  The first time she had a period a month or so later was also much more intense and draining then a normal one.

I'm not saying it's any less of a horrible act to happen, but this was a medical procedure to remove an already-deceased, strawberry-sized fetus and it took a toll on her body.  So while actresses might joke that they want to go ahead and have an abortion while it's still legal, I'll tell you that it's not enjoyable for anyone involved.