General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHey "some" men of DU
if you feel the need to down play the Hobby Lobby decision
if you feel the need to think righteous anger is "hair on fire"
if you feel the need to diminish the righteous anger by pointing out condoms aren't covered by insurance
if you feel the need to point out that it's only 4 types of contraception that aren't covered (which in fact is an out and out lie)
if you feel the need to say that women can still pay extra for their contraception therefore no rights are infringed upon
if you feel the need to call women who are concerned and angry over the decision hysterical
Kindly go fuck yourself.
undeterred
(34,658 posts)StopTheNeoCons
(889 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)boston bean
(36,186 posts)The Magistrate
(95,237 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)they are fucking the Dem party up worse then nyone, by standing on the sidelines.
Fucking idiots.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Left of the Republican party.
Pew Survey results Poll asking how an individual sees themselves)
Spring 2008:
I consider myself a Democratic Party loyalist -- 36% of the voters
I consider myself a Republican Party loyalist -- 22 to 24% of the voters
All the rest - 42 to 4o% of all voters.
Almost same identical stats were compiled by a Gallup poll last Autumn.
So if you unite that 36% of all voters to those in the majority (the 40 to 42% of all voters) assuming that the 40 to 42% is not all libertarians, then the Democratic party should have a shoe in. If people GOTV.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)What assholes.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)they are complete assholes who re just here to mock women, and not afraid to show it anymore.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Discriminate against one sector of the populace and it's then permissible to discriminate against others.
I just directed my company never to buy anything from Hobby Lobby. Don't think it will help in the big picture, but it's damn satisfying.
FSogol
(45,360 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)into the fucking mud. Libertarians can post RW shit with impunity, and feminists get degraded here- by hosts. Because Skinner never thought they would game the system.
FSogol
(45,360 posts)Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)They really have gamed the system. It's a damn shame to see it like this. There are too many out and out conservatives controlling this site. It's a shame that Democrats don't have anywhere to go online where we are not gerrymandered. It's the same concept, really.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And the stupid tits suggestion was from a host, who is openly hostile to women here. Not one host said a thing.
They should just resign instead of being part of the degradation here.
DURHAM D
(32,596 posts)skinner even knows DU has a problem.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I think he is hard pressed to admit the entire system is gamed by libertarians and childish trolls.
Great sites have actual moderation- but he has allowed the hosts to opt out of all responsibility. At some points Earl G was locking more threads. Juries seem to be doing their work for them these days.
Alerters- I am just discussing the discussion here. Not whining, but stating the god's honest truth.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)There were actually dicks that said that?
And they're not banned?
What? The? Fucking? FUCK?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Are there links to this shit? Like I need my head to explode...........
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)but I now see the bullshit behind it, sorry
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)you can sill edit that post. Because we're being trolled by women haters and we;d be grateful if dudes stopped laughing about life and death shit like our reproductive choice. I feel incredibly unwelcome here these days.
randys1
(16,286 posts)saying it...i will try and find it but it may be tough
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Squinch
(50,774 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 3, 2014, 06:37 PM - Edit history (1)
And most others look the other way.
So much for community anything these days. Juries are a safer bet.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)But I'm willing to see improvements, if there are any.
That would be nice, to see an increase in the number of people who reject misogynist behavior. It would mean "women's issues" are coming out of the hushed shadows.
The dirty, smelly, weak, stupid, girly, prudish, "no one would want to fuck you anyway", "doesn't affect me", "but what about my unlimited access to sex" shadows.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)can safely be ignored. and pretty much the others say nothing, leave the "tits" thread, ignore the bias.
I should edit to say "some" , the others only look the other way.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)disguised conservatives stampeding through every thread. That some of them are hosts was inevitable.
I keep thinking DU can't get uglier with respect to it's tolerance for degrading statements about women and its welcoming of anti-feminist trolls. I keep being proven wrong. It's beginning to feel like a silly form of masochism to post here.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)(not you, natch)
valerief
(53,235 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Ilsa
(61,675 posts)My thread was locked because it was a "call-out". I was just trying to send lots of DUers over to hammer him.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Blathering away like abortion clinic shootings never happen.....
randys1
(16,286 posts)The Roux Comes First
(1,279 posts)I would like to think that at least the great majority of non-troll men here are wholly aghast at the truly obnoxious HL "ruling." I suspect most of us can't help but feel remorse that the tool-kit for a male wanting to limit the chance of pregnancy is so sparse. We should be able to agree that we are in this together, sister. That is certainly my position. This was an absolutely awful paternalistic SC call by a largely out-of-touch a-legalistic RC-dominated court.
But I suspect I am a bit of a naïf on this.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)But I suspect I am a bit of a naïf on this.
I don't think so, TBH. There definitely do seem to be a few who really don't get the slippery slope thing, though.
betsuni
(25,138 posts)hlthe2b
(101,730 posts)HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)boston bean
(36,186 posts)There are enough of them to be very noticeable.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Generally when I see that I believe that it is included facetiously - the implication is that the opposite is meant. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
Bryant
boston bean
(36,186 posts)I was meant to add emphasis.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)sheshe2
(83,355 posts)leftstreet
(36,081 posts)Not much though
Although even one can produce a lot of controversy and get said poster a lot of attention
excringency
(105 posts)..."ballistic."
calimary
(80,700 posts)Glad you're here! Either way, the point is made. I think there are all kinds of directions we should try to follow, in fighting this. How 'bout let's go after that damn religious protection law that's being stretched all outta shape and is now playing center stage in the Unintended Consequences Theater. Let's go after the Hyde Amendment. Let's partner EVERY bill that involves ANY curtailment of contraceptive coverage - with a corresponding curtailment of Viagra coverage. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. This door swings both ways and we should absolutely help it do precisely that! We have to SHOW them how it hurts them, too, and how draconian approaches like this, which they assume only puts more controls on women, smacks them in the ass too.
Taste of their own medicine. See how they like it. Being nice and trying to reason with them sure doesn't work. Perhaps it's time to try a different approach.
ancianita
(35,814 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Thank You!
Squinch
(50,774 posts)And as bettyellen has pointed out, they are a force within the hosting group. They are steering the direction of the site, whether most men agree with them or not.
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)BootinUp
(46,928 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)I kid... I kid...
I don't even like pie.
"Some" men of DU can truly go fuck themselves.
Skittles
(152,967 posts)YES INDEED
wandy
(3,539 posts)If I may, let me bring up something that "some" men may not have thought about.
It's as important to you as it is to her.
Now fellows go sit quietly somewhere and think about that.
If you don't see the logic in that you might ought to do what the lady suggested.
Likely all by your little self.
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)You got. You got it all!
Thank you. You got what so many did not!
VWolf
(3,944 posts)And even if it weren't, empathy should be one of our greatest strengths.
DesertDiamond
(1,616 posts)Hekate
(90,202 posts)...about it here with people ("some" men and at least one woman) who have no intention of changing their minds ...
Well, thank you for the sentiment, boston bean.
liberalmuse
(18,670 posts)Thank you.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Points up the importance of winning presidential elections. No difference my ass.
ancianita
(35,814 posts)A few minutes ago, a lawyer friend of mine retracted his "jokey" post about it on FB after I'd made the case that that snark is insidious, women are snark weary and not putting up with it anymore, and how men need to recognize that this decision is also a harbinger of the fascism they'll be living under, as well, if this wannabe theocratic oligarchy gets its way. It took another male friend posting, "Yeah, this is bullshit" for him to delete the post.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)SCOTUS has gone rogue.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)The decision effectively disenfranchises women of valuable insurance coverage and of equal rights, and opens the Pandora's Box to many ways greedy RW corporations can evade pesky laws pertaining to sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.
Which "religions" are valid ? What's a sincerely held belief that's being burdened by the state ? Can privately held companies now legally pay women much less than men because of....Leviticus or some such nonsense ? Can PHC now refuse to hire PoC because of some nonsense in the Old Testament ?
Justice Ginsberg hit the nail on the freaking head. I'm with you, DU ladies.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)And if there are any DU men who feel that way (and I know a lot of you do not, so we are not speaking to you - we know you support us and we very much appreciate you!) please do not condescend to us by making us feel like we are over re-acting to this decision because it it is something that affects our lives very much.
We are hurt and upset by this. Please try to understand. Thank You!
Skittles
(152,967 posts)sick of idiots like that who JUST.DO.NOT.F***ING.GET.IT.
FreedRadical
(518 posts)It is a god damn shame when you think we have been all over these grounds. People have already fought and died for rights such as choice, voting, and gay freedoms. FREEDOM. Only to find ourselves back at the starting point.
I can't say I am surprised though. We are up against some nasty and vindictive and soulless people. The reason I am not surprised is that in the last 8 years, for every gain made, some shitty vindictive payback from their side has happened. Remember that shit in California on the night this country elected its first Black President. And fox was getting off on blaming Black People for a Mormon sponsored initiative. Just as vindictive as you could possibly be. Now gay marriage is nearly the law of the land, and what happens? A vindictive attack on choice.
Now we have professional trolls on this board intellectualizing hate, and calling it discourse. Just remember fuckers, you may win your little victories, but you know and we know, you are going to lose the revolution.
William769
(55,124 posts)Tanuki
(14,893 posts)REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
I understand the sentiment, but go fuck yourself is a violation. Disruptive, hurtful, rude, OTT, and otherwise inappropriate. Please, we don't need this disruptive META in GD. Please hide.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jul 1, 2014, 08:34 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Fuck that, alerter. This site has been subjected to so much misogynist bullshit since DU 3 started, much of it left to stand by juries, and lately it has increased noticeably. It is only right to let women fight back. Fair is fair.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Have absolutely no problem with this post.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It needed to be said, I am glad it hot said, and there is no way in hell I would vote to hide this. Here's to you boston bean :clapping:
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Methinks the alerter doth protest too much. Hey, alerter, are you one of those "some men"?
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Under most circumstances, I'd vote to hide. But this is a response to blatant sexism. Recommend that the poster herself edit last line.
----------------------------
liberalhistorian
(20,809 posts)comment infused with righteous anger! It's been truly shocking to me, as a gal, the level of outright and blatant misogyny and sexism here the past few years and the numbers of men coming out openly against feminism, claiming that DV is as bad, if not worse, for men, that men have it worse because of false accusations, that all the privileges now go to women, etc., etc. Some openly call child support "male enslavement", claim women's very real fears of being raped or assaulted to be hysterical overreaction, etc., etc. I could go on and on. And all of that shit is allowed to stand by juries. They see nonexistent misandry EVERYWHERE, but, to them, there's no such thing as sexism and women have it made in the shade. They can say what they want about women and no one is allowed to challenge them and if they do then they must be a bitter feminazi. But let a poster here tell the truth about them and they're screaming misandry, misandry, alertalertalert. And I am fucking SICK TO DEATH of it. I've been on here for eleven years, and this place didn't used to be like this at all nor did it tolerate this bullshit.
And why is it that almost every single thread devoted to discussing some aspect of sexism is derailed by posters asking "what about this or that ism, that's just as important", such threads are almost NEVER allowed to fully and completely just discuss sexism. And anyone who complains about that is just a bitter, man-hating sexist who's out to get men. GAH.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Right on, goddammit.
Great jury result, there too. Finally, more people are seeing through these dickbrains that pollute this site.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Hilarious.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)He cracks me up all the time too
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I could not agree with this more.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)It's the righteous truth of the matter.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Thank you for your cooperation.
betsuni
(25,138 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)Time to require that alerters and jurors be star members.
randys1
(16,286 posts)i.e.
you alert on someone and if your alerting is found to be whiney or right wingy, you get a strike
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)PatrickforO
(14,516 posts)Women need to be able to fight back. She wasn't telling anyone specific to 'f' himself, after all. It was a general comment aimed at 'those men' who don't think the HL decision was a big deal.
It was a big deal though - another skirmish in the ultra-right's war against women.
The idea that women shouldn't be equal is pretty ingrained in our culture, though. My wife and I watched a documentary yesterday that was about some books that didn't make it into the Torah or Bible. Specifically, the documentary told the story of Lilith, who was made side by side with Adam, equal. When she refused to submit to Adam, Lilith was driven away with the threat that 100 of her children would by killed by God each day she continued to refuse to submit (I guess the Judeo-Christian God is a misogynist too). Then, God, regretting that he made Lilith equal to Adam decided to make woman submissive, and Eve was made out of Adam's rib.
So there it is; completely INGRAINED in our culture. Inequality is even in our creation myths.
This is why our government must KEEP US FREE FROM RELIGION.
wryter2000
(46,016 posts)William769
(55,124 posts)On Tue Jul 1, 2014, 08:28 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Hey "some" men of DU
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025181214
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
I understand the sentiment, but go fuck yourself is a violation. Disruptive, hurtful, rude, OTT, and otherwise inappropriate. Please, we don't need this disruptive META in GD. Please hide.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jul 1, 2014, 08:34 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Fuck that, alerter. This site has been subjected to so much misogynist bullshit since DU 3 started, much of it left to stand by juries, and lately it has increased noticeably. It is only right to let women fight back. Fair is fair.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Have absolutely no problem with this post.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It needed to be said, I am glad it hot said, and there is no way in hell I would vote to hide this. Here's to you boston bean :clapping:
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Methinks the alerter doth protest too much. Hey, alerter, are you one of those "some men"?
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Under most circumstances, I'd vote to hide. But this is a response to blatant sexism. Recommend that the poster herself edit last line.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
For transparency, I was juror #5.
Solly Mack
(90,740 posts)sheshe2
(83,355 posts)I have no clue what "some" here at DU do not understand about this decision and how it effects more than just women!
BeJeebus! This is embarrassing
thanks William.
William769
(55,124 posts)liberalhistorian
(20,809 posts)would come forward so that we could all give him or her a box of virtual roses!
redqueen
(115,096 posts)Checked in after dinner and immediately got called to jury for this thread. What a nice surprise to see the results were 0-7
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)liberalhistorian
(20,809 posts)And keep it up, we need to really start fighting back.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Cha
(295,929 posts)righteous callout.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,698 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)BootinUp
(46,928 posts)Take your time with it.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Why do people think things, anyway?
"The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent be he also refuses to hate him." p. 103
"Here, then, is the hard challenge and the sublime opportunity: to let the spirit of Christ work toward fashioning a truly great Christian nation." p. 210
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)thinking is a crime where? where did you get that ridiculous idea? Links?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Of the thought police because "some" of his views are not appreciated. Most actually.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)you could point it out.
Still looks to me like "if you say the wrong thing, or think the wrong thing, then fu$% off."
Squinch
(50,774 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)You said I misunderstood something, and yet cannot say what it is.
Or will not.
No one is surprised that little old me is one of the people who needs to go fuck himself.
Or no one is surprised that little old me cannot understand this OP which is all about love and compassion and understanding?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)progree
(10,864 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:57 PM - Edit history (11)
decision" (somebody on the PBS Newshour)
[font color = red]Added On Edit[/font]:
- it was a very narrow decision because:
- it's just some pills and devices for a bunch of women
- it affects only women who are dating / married to a guy too cheap to pick up the tab for the contraceptives
- abstinence is always an option
- there are other jobs out there. Nobody is making you work for a closely held corporation owned by a religious fundamentalist (thx Cui Bono)
- You can always buy your own insurance -- chances are these kinds of companies pay so little that you'll probably qualify for a huge subsidy if you buy on the ACA exchanges, maybe even Medicaid if you live in a Medicaid expansion state (thx Cui Bono)
- the ruling still doesn't allow religious conscience exemptions for transfusions, vaccinations, and so on, only just for contraceptives
- it doesn't impose Sharia law (except on this one issue)
- it's not like they took away your guns or anything really major like that
- it's not like they've let the camel into the tent, it's [font face = arial]just[/font] the camel's nose under the tent.
(The camel in the tent is the official establishment of Christian Sharia Law (Chriria). That will take many many years. In the meantime, lighten up! )
- the ruling is not taking away ALL the ACA benefits from women. Women still get SOME benefits under the ACA (so let's work on an attitude of gratitude. Turn that frown upside down)
Warpy
(110,913 posts)in the country, including hospitals.
Catholic hospitals are a sick joke for women who can only expect full medical care above the waist and below the knees.
progree
(10,864 posts)I've seen surveys that American Catholics use contraception at about the same rates as Americans in general (a very high rate), despite official church doctrine, so hopefully American Catholic business owners will have the same attitudes ... but yes, I saw the "clarification" (below)
http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-health-law-mandate-cases-133633160--politics.html
Tuesday's orders apply to companies owned by Catholics who oppose all contraception. Cases involving Colorado-based Hercules Industries Inc., Illinois-based Korte & Luitjohan Contractors Inc. and Indiana-based Grote Industries Inc. were awaiting action pending resolution of the Hobby Lobby case.
Thread dedicated to the "clarification" for anyone interested in more about it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025178158
progree
(10,864 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:02 PM - Edit history (2)
Here's just two of the five Catholic ones for convenience of reference --
Eight Minnesota companies were among plaintiffs affected by Monday's Supreme Court ruling that some companies with religious objections can avoid the contraceptives requirement in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Here are the companies.
Plaintiffs: Feltl and Company, Inc., John C. Feltl and Mary Jo Feltl
Location: Minneapolis
Industry: Securities brokerage and investment banking
Excerpt from the complaint: The Feltls hold sincere religious beliefs based on the Roman Catholic Catechism which states "abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a 'criminal' practice" and which states "direct sterilization" and "contraception" are morally unacceptable.
Plaintiffs: American Mfg Company, Rev. Mr. (Deacon) Gregory E. Hall
Location: St. Joseph, Minn.
Industry: Mud pumps and parts
Excerpt from the complaint: Deacon Hall is a Roman Catholic Deacon of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston [Texas] assigned to Christ Redeemer Catholic Church where he conducts religious services and preaches...Deacon Hall is required as a Deacon to teach that contraception and abortion are sinful and morally unacceptable under Catholic religious law...Deacon Hall is also required to practice in his life, even in his business, what he preaches as a minister.
8 plaintiffs just in Minnesota. Minnesota has about 1/57 of the U.S.'s population. And I think we (Minnesotans) are less Catholic and less evangelical than the nation on average... So, nationwide, could be a lot of companies, especially considering the likelihood that only a small percentage that feel this way actually signed on as plaintiffs
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Supposed to know. I think we need an executive order that says you must publically display your religious affiliation in order to opt out of the requirement.
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)specialized companies in MN. This is good to know.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Completely missing the point that it is discrimination against women and it's allowing individuals to force their religious beliefs on others.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)this decision was bad; but President "Obama's compromise" was just as bad, while pointing out ... twice ... how this decision differed from the compromise, well ... BB told you what to do.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)Thankfully he got smacked down pretty good, but he is someone who has been spreading that manure for a long time here.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and he gets mad DU love.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)some people.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)How the pattern always plays out here on DU, a woman/PoC/GLBTQ member reacts to an outrageous act ... and the liberals on DU feel the need to tell us/them that we really shouldn't be upset because ... well ... because!
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)"It only narrowly applies to property law."
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Followed by a dissertation on how terrible a decision it was because it benefits the 1% and exacerbates the income equity problem ... the slave-plaintiffs, and Africans as a class, being denied basic personage rights, under the law ... well ... the 1%!
Squinch
(50,774 posts)slippery slope. Yeah, it means in the short run that an entire race of people will live in eternal slavery, but it is possible that someday it will lead to decisions that affect ME!!!!112@!!!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Slippery 1% Slope!
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)and therefore can't really be worth getting upset about.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I can't decide whether this is about the privilege, or whether we are just experiencing a wave of narcissism, here at DU.
Well, here this might help:
http://psychcentral.com/quizzes/narcissistic.htm
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)You nailed it.
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)We need to trust their instincts in these matters, that's what they want us to believe.
My opinion, they don't have a clue what they are talking about and probably never will. Sometimes it takes forever for dawn to break over Marblehead ( that's a metro Boston term) it fits here.
mcar
(42,210 posts)One of my favorite places. My sister lived there for 20 years and is now back in Boston.
Sorry for the off-topic: Boston bean is 100% correct.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I hope you meant to put that in quotations.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)has stated, on several occasions, that they are the really, real liberals, the defenders of liberal principles and the Democratic base ... and there are many here that break their necks to co-sign they're the really, real liberals, the defenders of liberal principles and the Democratic base.
So, No ... No quotation marks are necessary, here.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)either brogressives or brocialists.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)But economic liberals, sort of. Thy are by no means socially liberal, no matter how loudly they proclaim to be.
Number23
(24,544 posts)has been THOROUGHLY disproven for about a hundred years. And even if it hadn't, two days on DU would certainly disprove it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)liberal if they dont believe the principles that are liberal? And plez dont try the "they call themselves liberal". A lot of people here call themselves liberals that arent.
Why is it so important to disparage liberals, especially in an election year?
Number23
(24,544 posts)You keep telling yourself that no white liberals are afflicted by it. The rest of us will continue to live in the real world.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The very definition of liberalism excludes racists.
Number23
(24,544 posts)The rest of us will CONTINUE to live in the real world where we know what you're saying is la la fantasy land foolishness that is not supported by any historical evidence. Even many abolitionists held racist tendencies.
It is apparent that you are invested in pretending that white liberals can't be racists but it's unfortunate for you that the rest of us know better.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Once it's revealed a person is a racist, they lose their "liberal" badge.
You want so badly to paint liberals in a bad light. Why, would you do that on a liberal message board?
Number23
(24,544 posts)IT DOES NOT CHANGE REALITY. No matter how desperately you obviously need it to.
Every black leader this country has known has said this same thing about white liberals. MLK, Malcolm you name it. Do you think I'd take your word over theirs, and particularly when I know the truth for myself?
You keep hollering, screaming if you need to do that white liberals cannot and have never been racist. As I've said a hundred times now - THE REST OF US KNOW BETTER.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)you include. You dont know better. You would alienate those that would be your friends. How sad.
Liberals arent racists and those that disparage liberals must be conservatives. Now we all know that conservatives are most often racists.
Number23
(24,544 posts)And it's funny and pathetic as hell as the same time.
Because you are invested in falsehoods and ignorant of history, you expect the rest of us to be too?? Not gonna happen. Sorry that the truth pains you so much. Actually, I'm not sorry one bit. You need to educate yourself and stop wasting time throwing on the Coat of Victimhood and pretending that acknowledging that white liberals -- like ALL people -- are as susceptible to racism as everyone else is such an agonizing, painful thing to acknowledge. You might think liberals are superhuman but no one else does.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)There's a lot of people on here who I agree with on most policy that say some pretty sexist things. Then there are some who are championing women's rights but defend centrist policy, even right wing policy, and I mean a lot of it. So I think there's a lot of people on here who are very liberal on certain things but not on others. I find it weird myself.
It would be interesting to see a pie chart of it all, see how the percentages are for each area. But it would have to be based on the content of their posts and not how they self-identify.
Because there's a good amount of people on here who think they are liberals but defend policy and stances that are centrist at best. It's surprising really. And it's not just about bigotry/social issues that you mentioned, which I have seen too much of, it's also about a lot of government actions.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)free time as abortion clinic escorts. If you believe what you read on DU, it's all the most sexist and nasty guys escorting women at abortion clinics. I find myself doubting that claim often here.
If this thread weren't petering out, I would expect to get a response to this post from one of them that goes along the lines of, "Well I used to do that, but because you are so mean about it, I won't any more!"
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)you are including all the liberals on DU. I dont understand this on a liberal message board. If you are not a liberal, what are you?
By the way the liberals on the SCOTUS stood up for women's rights while the Conservatives didnt.
There are a lot of conservative here that claim to be liberals. They are easy to recognize because they support the TPP, XL Pipeline, and fracking.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that's what "Each and every person that has written the above statements ..." means. And that's what, "Hey, SOME men ..." means in the OP.
Secondly, what particularly is "liberal" about the statements that this thread has referred to?
And the liberals on the SCOTUS haven't made any of the statements that this thread has highlighted; however, the Conservatives on the SCOTUS, and liberals on this site have ... so what are you saying?
On this, we largely agree; but, I would extend the conservative identifier to include those that support the racial/gender status quo, and/or support the roll-back of a woman's right to control her own body, in general, and those that don't give a sh!t about/attempt to shut down discussions of racial/gender interests. That was largely the point of my post.
Finally, "Chuck a rock ... the dog that yelps, be the dog done got hit."
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Here are your words, "It amazes me ...How the pattern always plays out here on DU, a woman/PoC/GLBTQ member reacts to an outrageous act ... and the liberals on DU feel the need to tell us/them that we really shouldn't be upset..." That is addressed to "the liberals on DU". And if you are "chucking rocks" at liberals, I am yelping.
You also say, "... I would extend the conservative identifier to include those that support the racial/gender status quo, and/or support the roll-back of a woman's right to control her own body, in general, and those that don't give a sh!t about/attempt to shut down discussions of racial/gender interests. " and I would completely agree. Trying to paint me with that brush is very odd. Why would you do that? Dont we need to stick together on this issue?
On Edit: If you arent liberal, what are you?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)as you have pointed out by quoting my words ... I am/was ONLY talking about those "liberals on DU feel the need to tell us/them that we really shouldn't be upset...", when "a woman/PoC/GLBTQ member reacts to an outrageous act ..."
So tell me, Mr./Ms "not all men/liberals", how am talking about all liberals on this site?
Damn ... why do some liberals (I said SOME {ETA: but in this case I am referring specifically to you}) liberals work so hard at placing themselves in a class to be offended?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Really. Any troll can come here and claim to be liberal, then spou every racist, sexist meme in the book...that means they are not liberals. Some seem vested in pretending real liberals are actually conservatives, but that makes no sense. So logic tells me that a person who claims to be a liberal has consistently liberal views, whereas a person who does not is not.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)there are some/many here that are liberal economically; but not socially. And there are some/many here that seem to claim the economic stuff, as the touchstone of liberal interests ... I disagree. I value social equality/equity over the economic stuff, every time.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Just as economic conservatives are not liberal.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)You tried to disparage liberals. Now you say you only meant "some liberals" and I still say BS. No liberals act as you accused. And if you are not a liberal what are you? I dont know, help me out.
"Chuck a rock ... the dog that yelps, be the dog done got hit." Again, if you are chucking rocks at liberals, they will yelp.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)STFU ...
If you think I'm talking about you, when I have clearly described the subset of posters that I am talking about ... then, you are full of "working hard to be the victim" sh!t.
Wait ... let me ask ... You do understand the English language, right?
If English is your 4th language, I'll go line by line for you.
No ... I was disparaging those people that post on this site how liberal they are AND tell PoC and woman when, and how, they should reaction to an outrageous act.
No ... that is what I have been saying from the start; but maybe conditional/sentences with qualifiers confuse you.
Yes, they do ... hence the OP. Or, at least they claim to be liberals AND other liberals break in to co-sign their liberalness.
Oh ... I am a Democrat that subscribes to liberal principles; and that does not include defending folks that say un-liberal stuff, despite them and others calling them liberals.
Again ... why do you insist on lumping yourself in with a/the subset of posters that call themselves (with other defending them as) liberals, while posting racist/sexist crap?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)If you wish to disparage bigots, sexists, and misogynists, go for it and I will support you. But there are far too many in DU that try to disparage liberals in general.
As far as telling me to Shut The Fuck Up, I've heard that before. I think it was Rahmbo Emanuel. He doesnt like liberals either.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I'm not one of them.
What does that have to do with anything ... other than, a low thinly veiled slap at the President Obama administration of about 5 or 6 years ago?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)liberals. It happens way too much here. I see it as an attempt to drive a wedge between the liberals and whatever they call themselves (often called DLC, The Third Way, etc.)
I hope we can work together to see that progressive Democrats prevail in 2014 and 2016.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)on every ballot ... I prefer progressives, that care about more than just combatting the 1%, and economic issues; but those that will, also, work to address the unacceptable racial/gender/GLBTQ status quo.
And then after the primaries, I will work to get ever Democrat on the ballot elected, whether DLC, 3rd-way, or however ones wishes to categorize them ... because the guy/gal with the "D" after is/will be far better than anyone with an "R" after their name.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)us in the back. I understand your reasoning for supporting them but I cant do it. I think we are where we are because the damn Blue Dogs support the Republicans every chance they get. Look who supported Bush?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)it's not just the "Blue Dogs." Even the Bluest of Blue-dogs vote with the Democratic Caucus on 70+% of the votes. The seminal, distinctive vote that demonstrates(ed) support for Bush found was the Iraq War Resolution. It found only 156, voting "No" ... and that included some republicans.
I can understand holding one's nose and voting for a Blue dog; but I cannot see not voting for a Blue dog ... it's simply a matter of math and recognized self-interest (e.g., 70 > 1).
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)or is a known homophobe or racist, for example, I can not vote for them. If the system has gotten so bad that that's our only choice, then we need to do something drastic. Following the lesser of evils method has slowly ratcheted the lower classes to a point of almost total subjugation. Each time it's only a little worse than before until it's too late to fight back. We've been following this method for 30 years and it looks grim to me.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the "lesser of two evils" is frustrating; but what is more frustrating for me is the refusal to acknowledge that there are regions/districts where the "better candidate", cannot win/has not won ... it is there, and IMO, there alone, where the hated Blue-dogs have value.
But the call for "something drastic", is a lot like all of paul ryan's plans ... it relies on some magical event that is unlikely to occur. And relying on/planning based on that magical event is not living in reality.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)a path out of this mess. IMO we are getting farther behind every day. Granted we are gaining some much needed social changes, but if we continue on the path of losing our freedoms and liberties via the NSA/CIA and losing our economic liberties via Wall Street, we will get to a point were we can smoke marijuana in the soup lines. Following the status quo wont fix us. We will need something drastic and I am not speaking of violence.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Truth!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I can't understand how/why someone would work so hard to put themselves in the/a class being criticized. I've always thought, "If the shoe don't fit, why try and force it on?"
But then again, maybe those whining "notallmen/liberal" see themselves in the criticism?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)are you chucking rocks at liberals.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)I'm a liberal, and I know he wasn't referring to me - as I don't engage in the behavior he described.
Likewise, if you don't engage in that behavior, then he wasn't referring to you, either.
Response to cyberswede (Reply #244)
rhett o rick This message was self-deleted by its author.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)If you can see me reading threads on DU, then you'll see me in threads on those topics. If you think that only people who post prolifically in those threads qualify as liberal, then you're wrong.
I think you misunderstood 1strongblackman's post, and you're digging in your heels trying to remain insulted, for some reason.
Response to cyberswede (Reply #250)
rhett o rick This message was self-deleted by its author.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)I honestly don't think he intended to disparage liberals.
And I'm glad the liberals on the court supported women's rights.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Thanks for the decent discussion. I will delete my above accusation.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)I know some people do like to kick liberals around - blaming us for being too lefty, or radical, or whatever, and driving centrist voters away.
In reality, though my views are pretty far left (democratic socialist), once upon a time, they were considered typical Democratic views. *sigh*
Keep on keepin' on.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Rape or racism with: "Not all men rape" and "Not all white people are racist."
The problem is, while true, it distracts from the men that DO rape and the white people, including liberals, that DO do racist stuff.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Again, for the life of me, I can't understand how/why someone would work so hard to put themselves in the/a class being criticized. I've always thought, "If the shoe don't fit, why try and force it on?"
But then again, maybe those whining "notallmen/liberal" see themselves in the criticism?
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Excellent point!
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)The meaning of which is contested, no more so than here on DU. There are people who consider themselves true liberals who are openly hostile to women and people of color. They seem to think political purity is measured by how much one hates Democrats, all while naively buying into national mythology and showing no conception of the role of the state under capitalism. People have contorted the word so that anything they believe is liberal and what others do is RW or centrist. You are one who loves to hurl labels as insults without embarking on any analysis of what that means.
This all reminds me why I never used the term liberal to describe myself and prefer leftist. Classical Liberalism emerged as the political corollary to capitalism and still retains some of that meaning, which is why it is not associated with the left in much of the world.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)If people want to disparage the sexist, homophobic and racists among us, go for it. I will support you all the way. But some here see an opportunity to disparage the liberals. It's clearly disruptive.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)In such controversial matters, no one is right and no one is wrong, because, golly, people just think differently and that's okay! ...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But when I saw that post, I thought that was more about a general world view, which we all have and will passionately defend.
Oh yeah ... that penguin GIF always makes me laugh. I find myself watching it wayyy longer than I should.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Change has come
(2,372 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)K&R
alittlelark
(18,886 posts)nolabear
(41,915 posts)I have seen less "nice" tolerance for the shit we've had to put up with since time began in the last couple of days than I ever have before. We might just be at the beginning of a movement.
BIG love to the men and women who take men and women seriously, and fuck ALL y'all who dare to dismiss and diminish us.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)MerryBlooms
(11,728 posts)etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Sometimes it MUST be said!
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)For saying what needed to be said. I'm impressed you managed to put it "kindly". I don't trust myself to respond to some of the bullshit I've seen here this week.
demmiblue
(36,751 posts)It constantly amazes me that they are allowed to post here.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)this just makes it that much more awesome!
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)myrna minx
(22,772 posts)planetc
(7,718 posts)Well played.
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)Too bad we can't have a supreme court decision about that...
Squinch
(50,774 posts)that the problem with this ruling is that it might eventually affect you badly, and that the part about the birth control is not that bad per se, kindly go fuck yourself.
And understand that, if you hold any of these beliefs or needs, even if you don't believe you are a sexist, you are a sexist.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)issues. It is a conservative and often hyper religious lot that can not bear even the thought of women and LGBT people being equal.
And they should go fuck themselves. They should not even be on DU.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)Which makes for quite a revealing convergence of opinions.
valerief
(53,235 posts)ann---
(1,933 posts)that MANY women use birth control pills as therapy for some female problems that have NOTHING to do with preventing births. These rightwingnut fanatics who think contraception is a sin need to grow up and get a life and stop interfering in women's health issues.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)IronLionZion
(45,261 posts)and of course the conservative corporations who wish to punish their female employees (and female family members) by denying them important health benefits based on misguided philosophical ideas that are scientifically incorrect, mainly out of spite. Those folks need to go fuck themselves hard.
I share your rage.
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)When you get ordered to pay child support for a child you were not planning on...double that "Kindly go fuck yourself." Maybe you should have had that vasectomy that IS covered.
'Nuff said.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)UtahLib
(3,179 posts)Different day, same old shit oozing from the same self absorbed shitheads.
Javaman
(62,442 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:36 PM - Edit history (1)
by using them in your sentence, you make it appears as if you are referring to all men.
But you "knew" that right? LOL
http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com/
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww!
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I don't read any malicious "intent" into the use of quotation marks in the OP, however, I do think most "people" would agree it is a "misuse" of the "punctuation".
boston bean
(36,186 posts)I put it in quotations to emphasize that I did what people demanded that I do on this website. Let everyone know that it is only "some" men.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And you should look at that website, it's funny.
Plus, in case you didn't notice, I'm agreeing with your point in this thread. If you want to have an argument with me, you'd probably get more traction if you wait until I'm actually disagreeing with you.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)I want to set you straight. When someone demands I say something a certain way, I will use quotations to show I have used their verbiage.
If you don't like it, or it's not grammatically correct, I could care less.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I hope you get everything you wanted out of this "thread".
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Guess you won't be sending any alerts for a while
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that the OP is sexist. Too funny. Hope you can see why
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)eg. adding a comma where it doesn't belong
or leaving commas out
same with periods
and it works with quotation marks, too, as has already been discussed up-thread.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)I usually use asterisks when I want to highlight text in a thread title, but bb obviously chose another method.
If she had posted Hey men of DU, she would have been excoriated for not saying some men...when the context of the thread makes it clear she is only referring to the people who actually fit the criteria she is criticizing.
Your graphics are funny.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)BootinUp
(46,928 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)stage left
(2,934 posts)Threads from certain outrageous posters in the last couple of days, know exactly what and who Boston Bean meant. I've been lurking here a good while and I'm fairly familiar with the usual suspects, but you're new to me."LOL"
Javaman
(62,442 posts)I'm Javaman, I've been here for 10 years.
and since I'm new to you, you seem easy to launch accusations.
huh, how about that.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)what have you done beyond posting on a discussion board?
Have you even emailed HL to tell them of your displeasure with their policy?
Yawn.................
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)Hobby Lobby cared enough about this issue to take it all the way to the US Supreme Court, but an email from BB will almost certainly get them to change their mind.
MarianJack
(10,237 posts)...I'm outraged by the decision.
PEACE!
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)That said, while the Hobby Lobby case probably doesn't augur the coming of the end times, it was a bad decision. That OP that said it was up to women to do something about it was pretty stupid and displayed a real lack of solidarity. An injury to one is an injury to all.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)and end times?
redqueen
(115,096 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)derby378
(30,252 posts)...I'll stand outside this Hobby Lobby and privately fume that nobody will join my protest.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Like, say, #NotAllSupremeCourts?
Seriously, thanks for your post. Too bad I can only rec it once.
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)Well played.
riqster
(13,986 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)patronize women (and often minorities and GLBT Americans) and dismiss their civil rights as "distractions" and "gonadal politics" and "lifestyle liberalism"
do they understand how oafish they sound?
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)This really gets so tiresome. It's exhausting, really. Thanks for pointing it out, Geek Tragedy.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Hey, some "people" of DU.
Because, you know, women who feel that way are even worse.
Rider3
(919 posts)Efilroft Sul
(3,573 posts)Really, there are guys on DU expressing that shite? You were too kind to them, boston bean!
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)JohnnyRingo
(18,581 posts)I'm not sure, but it appears you believe this court decision to be an attack on women, and are taking it personally. I don't have a dog in this particular gender fight you seem to be waging in DU, and I don't know to whom you refer when you name "certain men", but I believe you're somewhat shortsighted.
I'm certain the right wing corporatists on the Supreme could not care less about your reproductive decisions, or the bible for that matter, and more about yet handing another deregulation victory to a major corporation. Even Elaine Kagen, in her minority dissent, made no mention of women's issues, but instead focused on how corporations can interpret this to cheat workers of both sexes out of benefits in the near future.
Your arrogance in finding this decision to be all about you is like my complaining that the Supreme's fateful decision to merge Sirius and XM was all about Robert's disdain for Deadheads like me who enjoy the network's Grateful Dead channel.
You'd find more support if you organized against Hobby Lobby instead of alienating 50% f the population in an imaginary battle against liberal misogyny. I'm personally not going to set foot again in the retail giant's store, but such a shunning is easy in such a competitive market. I'm doing this because of the company's obvious disregard for labor, not just for the couple hundred total female workers that it may affect in the short term.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)about me" party.
And did you think it WASN'T about women?
You need to read the OP more slowly next time.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)1)
2)
3)
4)
I never named "certain men". I used the word "some".
5)
The Supreme Court actually does care about womens reproductive decisions. And I am a woman.
6)
Since this effects women medical decisions only, I presume it is a given that it effects one SEX, the female sex.
7)
8)
I sincerely doubt I have alienated anyone who agrees that this decision sucks for women.
9)
I also won't visit a hobby lobby.
10)
This decision effects more than just women who work for Hobby Lobby, educate yourself please. You are looking foolish.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Good grief, the cluelessness is truly astounding.
JohnnyRingo
(18,581 posts)The fact that it was found in a case concerning contraception is purely incidental, it'll be applied in a wide range of policies.
I'm not clueless, and I'm not trying to divide DU by gender lines. Truly astounding.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:22 PM - Edit history (1)
with women's reproductive choice is "purely incidental" indicates you may be clueless.
JohnnyRingo
(18,581 posts)...shares a religious concern with women's contraception. I don't believe that, I think they handed a broad brush exemption to big business that allows them to avoid government regulation. That's been a hallmark of the Roberts court.
After some thought, I've come to believe that the "certain men" that the OP concerns herself with may also believe that this court decision only targets women, and make comments that demean the ruling as relatively harmless (to them). I obviously don't agree with that opinion, regardless your view that I'm "clueless".
I guess you just believe the Supreme Court hates women. Unlike the deeper legal ramifications of this decision, that fits nicely on a bumper sticker.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)There are 5 rightwing Catholic men on the court. Care to guess (a) the Catholic church's stance on contraception and the contraception mandate and (b) how those 5 rightwing Catholic men voted in Hobby Lobby?
Just because you have not been paying attention to the Republican coalitions' attacks on women's reproductive choice does not mean it isn't real.
I'm sure the women here appreciate you mansplaining Republican jurisprudence on contraception and abortion to them.
JohnnyRingo
(18,581 posts)If the Roberts court made a conservative decision based on their religious beliefs, then that'd a first. This court has consistently made rulings that offer corporate relief from various government regulation, and this is no exception.
Several years ago Roberts even frustrated the religious right by stating that he had "no interest" in revisiting Roe/Wade, but you seem to believe that he and other cons have deep held convictions when it comes to birth control pills, presumably because they hate women. That this ruling provides a loophole for huge corporations to save money by denying workers expensive health care is not a coincidence.
This decision is a bow tied gift to companies that want to ignore the expense of Obamacare, not a frontal assault against women. This is backed up by every legitimate pundit who offers a comment. DU seems to be the only place I can find where it's being interpreted as only a women's rights issue. Today we read that corporations predictably are now inquiring if they can use the Roberts decision to discriminate against the LGBT community in general.
Denigrating gender comments and assumptions that I'm too ignorant to be aware of the political environment does not strengthen your argument, but you go ahead if it makes you feel better. I've stated my case and refuse to reiterate for the sole sake of argument.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)your nonsense claim that the wingnut justices have zero interest in diminishing women's reproductive choice .
The one where they ruled that a nonprofit was horribly oppressed by being required to fill out a form telling an insurance company that the nonprofit didn't want to to pay for birth control.
After saying 3 days earlier that such a form was a reasonable accommodation.
Your position can only be characterized as willful blindness. Why you choose to adopt such an absurd position is a mystery.
progree
(10,864 posts)women. And to the men that the women take the contraceptives for. And an F.U. to REAL religious freedom -- the right to not have one's boss dictate his/her religious views).
The three female justices of the Supreme Court sharply rebuked their colleagues Thursday for siding with a Christian college in the latest battle over providing women with contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act, saying the court was retreating from assurances offered only days ago.
In a short, unsigned opinion, the court said that Wheaton College in Illinois, at least temporarily, does not have to comply even with compromise provisions in the law that the college says still violate its religious beliefs.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the action cast doubt on the very accommodation the courts majority seemed to endorse Monday in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which concerned businesses that objected to providing birth control that offends the owners beliefs.
Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word, wrote Sotomayor, who was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. Not so today.
More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/2014/07/03/622f7b12-02f8-11e4-8572-4b1b969b6322_story.html
There's a lot more at the "More", including disagreement on the impact of this.
Yes, Stephen Breyer -- the only male who joined the 3 females in dissent in the Hobby Lobby case -- did not join their dissent in this ruling, no reason given. In case anyone was wondering.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)A Woman. That's it. She is the only Catholic that dissented. The remaining dissenters were Jewish.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)How about the IMMEDIATE impact is that HL and dozens of other companies will use this ruling to deny contraceptive coverage to women in spite of the ACA mandate, and the longer term implication is that companies can use this ruling to skate out from under all sorts of worker protections? Calling that 'deregulation' sounds good on a right wing board but here I'd call it erosion of freedom of religion.
Ripple through still waters, ya know.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)My observation on such issues is if you're not leading the charge or part of the cheering section, you're part of the problem.
JohnnyRingo
(18,581 posts)If you did you wouldn't have made such a baseless charge.
Feel free to search my posts for evidence
hughee99
(16,113 posts)I'm commenting on who "certain men" and based on my observations about who are considered "certain men" by the people who refer to others as "certain men".
As for a baseless charge, I didn't charge you with anything.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)because it doesn't effect your gender.
clueless.
JohnnyRingo
(18,581 posts)I, and most pundits that have offered an opinion, believe this decision has wide ranging consequences that bound past gender lines. Even Justice Sotomier, in her dissent, outlined how it can be applied universally in the near future. Just today, it was reported that some companies are inquiring if their religious views can now be used to avoid upcoming regulations on hiring from the LGBT community.
This decision is a broad brush gift to corporations that want to avoid government requirements that provide expensive health care to employees, not just an assault against women. Insisting that the Roberts court is out to get you for being born a woman seems a bit self centered. Frankly, your vagina takes a distant back seat to corporate financial interests when it comes to this Supreme Court.
If calling me names strengthens your baseless argument that the court just hates women, then knock yourself out. I refuse to reiterate for the sake of giving you opportunity to employ clever emojis.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)"clueless" was an empirical observation.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Totally agree with you.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Her talking points were damn near IDENTICAL to what the guys you are calling out were saying.
She found it to be of no concern. Even mentioned keeping legs crossed. When I called her out, she
told me not to argue with her about her uterus. I replied with "but it's ok for 5 men to make decisions concerning such?"
I was completely flabbergasted that I was having that conversation. I thought to myself, "if only HoF could see this..."
What's really fucked up is she's not a conservative or Christian. She's mostly apolitical (and seems to side with dems on MOST issues when she does chime in with opinion). And she works in the medical profession.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)And there is truth to that. This decision doesn't stop a woman from going to the pharmacy and buying birth control pills.
The idea that birth control should be free is mainly a liberal idea, and that's the problem a lot of people have with this debate.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Health insurance that is partly paid by the employee, and partly paid by the employer. There was NO FREE birth control.
The justices mentioned that the gov't could provide free birth control to women to get around their decision.
You got a problem with the Supreme Court recommending that?
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Should have been a single payer to begin with.
Most modern western democracies dont have this issue that we are having right now because they have single payer systems and not employer-provided health insurance that allows corporations to have any say at all.
That's the 800 pound gorilla in the room no one wants to talk about because they are scared of criticizing Obamacare. I knew when this law passed in 2009 it was a bad law. This decision is just the tip of the iceberg of what's coming.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)whatever you can do to deflect from the rampant sexism being enabled by the judiciary
"should have been single payer to begin with"
this is what is traditionally known as a 'fantasy'
there were not the votes for single payer. So says Bernie Sanders. now, if you want to argue that thousands of people should be allowed to die rather than having the ACA get enacted, own that argument instead of hiding behind silly arguments
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Public funds to be used for abortion and now with this Supreme ruling, contraception.
It would still be a total cluster. It is about one thing and one thing only. Controlling uteruses.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)since they couldn't hide behind religous liberty on that one.
at its base it's exactly what Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Including putting restrictions on womens health choices due to religious beliefs.
You want to start a thread about it, please do. That doesn't mean that there aren't other issues that reverberate just as strongly.
For all bills concerning womens health the Hyde amendement is attached, preventing any public funds to be used for abortion. You think that with a public plan this decision from the court would have been different?
The issue lies with religious fucks wanting to control women. They don't want to control men. They want to control uteruses. That makes it about women, ok?
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Congress has the constitutional power to tax...even Justice Roberts says this is true.
If the Congress wants to have a tax, and then use that money for healthcare (even to pay for abortions or contraception), there isn't anything unconstitutional about that. The problem with that though is getting it past the Republicans in Congress (and perhaps even some Democrats).
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)thucythucy
(7,986 posts)It's a part of one's salary, another form of compensation, a "benefit" like paid vacation or sick time or retirement. Workers PAY for those benefits by accepting lower wages. In other words, workers work for their health insurance.
The idea that health insurance, or any part thereof, is provided for "free" by benevolent for-profit corporations is another right wing shibboleth.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)In the sense that many other services are covered. Vasectomies and viagra, amongst them. But BC is not. And BC isn't always for BC. Sometimes it's a hormone regulator. This was the wrong ruling. It weakens the ACA as a whole, and opens up a whole slew of "possibilities" for "religious businesses".
Now, women working for those companies have to pay out of pocket for something that was previously covered, because religion.
Also, religion should not get to redefine science. None of those were abortificants, but because they "believe" they are, then we can rule they are? Fuck that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to meddle in the healthcare offered to women, but not men.
Repeat after me:
contraception is health care
contraception is health care
contraception is health care
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)before posting this nonsense.
Or just admit you are fine with Hobby Lobby deciding people's medical decisons- because that is what they are trying to accomplish. If it hurt your penis, I bet you'd squeal like a pig.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts):thumbs up:
Amaya
(4,560 posts)issues! Do women discuss penis issues ?
Fuck off!
Brisk
(37 posts)Doesn't do any good to spew ugliness on the internet...
boston bean
(36,186 posts)as not to offend the offensive.
Have a good one.
alp227
(31,962 posts)On Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:47 PM you sent an alert on the following post:
Breathe deeply and count to 10...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5185791
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
YOUR COMMENTS
Rude, ad hom attack on boston bean (possibly misogynist too since bean often posts at the feminist boards)...possible disruptor too due to recent registration date. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=315364
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:26 PM, and voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT ALONE.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Don't need direct nastiness from a newbie. n/t
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If it's a troll it will reveal itself soon enough. This post isn't offensive, however. If you alert on one that is, I'll vote to hide it, but I'm not going back through all 21 previous posts to determine if this is a troll or not. That's for the MIRT people, or whatever they're called.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not worthy of hide
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you.
Logical
(22,457 posts)alp227
(31,962 posts)It's straight-up, undisputable HARASSMENT based on bean standing up for women's issues.
Logical
(22,457 posts)alp227
(31,962 posts)"Other things are worse than X" is never an argument against "X".
Brisk
(37 posts)... But an attitude like that is likely to push allies away and cost you instead of gaining support.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)B9: watch your tone, or I'll withhold my support for your cause!
Brisk
(37 posts)... That the originator of the 'More flies with honey... ' saying was an MRA advocate whoever he or she was?
They certainly got out in front of that one...
Sometimes I think you guys just want to argue instead of actually winning advancement for an important cause.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)what is offensive was never an ally to begin with, imho.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)Anyone who is pushed away by "tone" is not an ally to begin with, and is also usually wielding their privilege as a weapon.
Brisk
(37 posts)In the end I suppose it's about what your goals are...
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Sorry to see you have taken such an offense to my offense of offending the offensive.
Now, go preach to someone else.
Response to boston bean (Reply #282)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Squinch
(50,774 posts)Response to Squinch (Reply #313)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Squinch
(50,774 posts)Response to Squinch (Reply #316)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Squinch
(50,774 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Squinch
(50,774 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)enjoy your stay.
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #290)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)keep disrespecting, dude. keep it up.
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #299)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)For you = disrespect a woman will get someone a big fuck you. Either get with the program or get gone out of the thread.
Phentex
(16,330 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Phentex
(16,330 posts)the posting styles are very similar and they are so obvious.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)and then we have some outright disruptors who manage to ride the ToS Line like it is a daily commute.
Phentex
(16,330 posts)I don't think I have ever participated in a grave dancing thread but there's a really smelly troll right now and I am going to enjoy a full blown "break-dancing-on-my-back" party when it's gone.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)stage left
(2,934 posts)for saying what needed to be said.
Gothmog
(144,005 posts)I enjoy getting in the face of the idiots advancing these claims. I like to "discuss" and there are some idiots on Discussionist who need some education.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that need some educating, as well.
But then, again, they may be the same people.
Gothmog
(144,005 posts)I mostly stay out of any of the fights or debates on DU because I am not looking to debate anyone on this site. I agree with 90%+ of the posters here on most if not all issues. DU is an amazing source of information on a wide range of issues and the materials posted here are great. I love the information and insights that I get from this board.
I go to the Discussionist site because I like debating or discussing issues with conservatives. I like to mix it up with the conservatives on Discussionist website. I am mainly dealing with very conservative types over there and go after the people with the most offensive positions. Some of these people my be DUers or ex-DUers but I doubt it in that I tend to engage mostly with obvious conservative types whose posts are too stupid to be on DU.
I like to argue and debate issues and the Discussionist site is a good place for me to engage with real conservatives. I tend not to get involved in the "debates" or "fights" on DU because I can usually see both sides of the argument and I do not think that it is appropriate to debate with people that I agree with on over 90%+ of the issues. I have been on DU for over 10 years and had lurked for a couple of years before joining. I love the information and insights that I get from DU
City Lights
(25,171 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)mysuzuki2
(3,521 posts)boston bean
(36,186 posts)Sorry to see that its difficult for you though.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)This is the kind of thing that should be against everything we stand for.
locdlib
(176 posts)Some men don't seem to understand how this impacts them, too. My getting pregnant affects you, my having painful, incapacitating hemorrhaging affects you, having your employer dictate to you what type of birth control you and your girlfriend/wife select affects you. The way I see it, men need to stand up and get involved in this issue or they can quite literally go sit in a corner and fuck themselves.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)except...don't care for CORPORATIST HILLY.
yuiyoshida
(41,764 posts)sendin some luv to Boston Bean!
niyad
(112,435 posts)Response to boston bean (Original post)
Jamastiene This message was self-deleted by its author.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)But thanks for the K&R. I've never had an issue with you. I don't know why you felt the need to say what you did.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)But this is one of those times where we have an actual issue of importance to women and if you support this flawed decision, you aren't a Democrat, you aren't a progressive, you aren't a liberal, you are a sexist asshole, period. This is a REAL battle that needs to be fault for sure. I'm fully on board with getting up in people's faces about this.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)What, as a society, do we find normal and acceptable? What as "the left" do we display to others about our beliefs?
Our society as a whole is revealing its clear belief, day after day, that women ought not to have agency over their lives and bodies. This ruling upholds that belief.
And when a poster refers to women as "cumdumpsters" on a purportedly left leaning message board, and it is allowed to stand, and it is applauded, we are reinforcing and expanding that same position. Worse, we are saying that it is OK with us that women are treated like garbage. We are saying that the group that ought to be the most dependable in its defense of women's rights share the view that demeaning women is fun and OK.
Objecting to language like that is not "extreme feminist stuff." It is forwarding the same position that you are taking with your post.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Because it obviously needs to be said again.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Silent3
(15,020 posts)...but I reserve the right to call "hair on fire" on other issues.