Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
That's just it. Mourdock's comments weren't, and he didn't, and you only think they were and he did because they've been persistently misrepresented by people who oppose him. It's true that it may be stupid politics for any pro-life person to say anything about rape, but that is only because every time they do their opponents try to use it to bully them out of politics. This is a bad thing, and should be opposed or at least not endorsed by anyone with integrity.
edited 21st Nov '12 4:50:38 AM by EdwardsGrizzly
<><Um, it's entirely possible to hold a valid position that finds Mourdock's position reprehensible and stupid. I don't think he wants to demean women, diminish the impact of rape, or any of those horrible things that, unfortunately, his statement actually does because of how he has framed and presented the topic. I also disagree with statements like this
For the record, it's a conversation I've been willing to have for 500+ pages now
. I am admittedly looking for a topic that is probably above OTC's tolerance level for inflammatory discussion. I am a bit of an anomaly in these discussions myself; I justify the legalization of abortion on grounds that are utterly indifferent to whether the fetus is a person or not, there atheist and feminist organizations I criticize for not being intersectional enough (the first for being indifferent to social issues, the second for being indifferent to LGBTQ and racial issues), and I justify my support for climate change legislation on capitalist grounds (our feet-dragging will sentence the next two generations, at least, to energy rationing and carbon capture programs far more demanding than anything dreamed up by the hard green radical lobby so far once we break 550 ppm carbon in the atmosphere, and that's a best-case scenario).
So I get lumped in with the liberal majority of this forum, and when conservative posters complain about being crowded out by liberal views, my reaction is kind of
I'd love to hear more of their views, because it would give me the chance to express the nuances of my own. It just so happens that I don't enjoy that luxury because I pick topics that are discussed via PM here.
Nuanced policy discussions are a privilege, not a right. You have to construct areas in which such reasoned discourse can safely occur, and where distinctions in both majority and minority positions can be clearly distinguished. U.S. Politics is not that area yet. Regardless of how many shades of nuance lie behind Mourdock's statements, which were doubtless made with the best of intent and a recognition of women as human beings at some level, the way he framed the statement and the context in which he delivered it were as bad as the premises upon which he founded it.
It was a harmful statement. He would have been better off not saying it.
Speaking of PM conversations, I have been really tired lately. Captain Maxima, could you remind me what I was supposed to include in that science report by PM?
edited 21st Nov '12 5:58:02 AM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.I want to tip my hat to Edwards Grizzly and R Taco for having the balls to call out the blatant double standard that too many well-meaning people on this site constantly engage in.
Only a week ago, I too had to demonstrate to another group of left-leaners that Mourdock at no point said "Rape is gift from God" or "it's God intention for people to get raped."
It amazes me that Rubio is a "liar" or "stupid" or "lazy" for saying that inspite of radiometric testing, the Earth might yet still be a young Earth, but yet these people of vastly superior intellect and reason cannot read a simple statement honestly and accurately.
It gets tiring to be the one on who calls this sort of thing out and I'm glad Edwards did.
Mo F
for you sir. Edit: And also to Silasw, who has demonstrated of habit of doing what some people don't, and that's to actually admit the validity in an opposing point, rather than simply dismiss it or pretend it's non-existent.
Taoist, while your points were correct, I find them irrelevant to the charges levelled. Mourdock's mistake was a poor choice of words. The people who twisted his statement into something it clearly wasn't are guilty of intellectual dishonestly and flagrant hypocrisy.
You tell me which is the bigger crime.
edited 21st Nov '12 6:21:11 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorCertainly, it is entirely possible to find his position reprehensible. However, it is not reasonable to believe that his position, reprehensible or not, is founded on misogyny or rape-culture, which is the accusation that is persistently made. Furthermore, the reasoning by which one might find his position reprehensible is no more inherently valid than the reasoning by which a pro-life person might find a pro-choice person's position reprehensible.
<><We've banned plenty of liberals for misbehaviour. We know that some of the Mods here hold political positions that are to the Left of the Centre of American politics. We're very aware of this and we do try to make sure that we're not giving anyone any slack just because we agree with them. I for one have banned loads of people for misbehaviour even though I agreed with them.
Usually when we see someone state something we agree with in a way we don't agree with we discuss it with the other Mods before Thumping or banning. Same with positions that we disagree with. We don't want the Thump or ban to have anything to do with whether the positions stated in the post(s) are in line with ours. We're only interested in behaviour. (Well, some positions - racism and so on - are inherently against the rules, but that's laid out in the Forum Rules.)
Sometimes we go too far in protecting those with whom we disagree. If you remember Savage Heathen, there's one example. We didn't want to ban him for his opinions, and without meaning to we ended up forgiving too many instances of breaking the rules just to be neutral. Same with a couple of Concervatives who took a long time getting banned despite having a huge Thump count. You probably know who I'm talking about.
Incidentally, this is off-topic. Further discussion about perceived Mod bias goes in Appeal to the Moderation (a thread in Wiki Talk.)
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur."You only think they were and he did because they've been persistently misrepresented by people who oppose him"
Grizzly, a while back weren’t you (quite rightly) criticising us for assuming that the only way someone could disagree with us is if they are wrongly informed? Because that's exactly what you're doing here, now unless the quote that someone posted on the last page is false, then I'm gona go ahead and say that you're wrong in you assumption of how I came to my view (I realise your post is a response to Potatoes but as I "here here"ed him I felt it was thus also aimed at me).
Now like I said there has been outright lying and distortion of information by people on the left, one of the most blatant examples I can think of was the "Some girls rape easy" comment made by some republican. Sounds bad? The problem is it was being taken completely out of context by everyone and anyone, if you looked at the context you would realise it was actually pat of the candidate repeating some advise he had got (I believe from his father) about only sleeping with people you trust because someone untrustworthy might cry rape if they end up pregnant. Now I'd question how good that is as parenting advise but the candidate (whose name I can't for the life of me remember) certainly didn't deserve to be lumped in with the likes of Mourdock.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran100% agreed with Grizzly.
In the context of these threads, you see this kind of bullshit pop up all the time.
"You support Christianity because you were brainwashed." - "Um, no, I made a conscious decision. By the way, do I get to say you're gay because you were indoctrinated??"
"You support the Republicans because you're too dumb to let go." - "Um, I support the Republicans inspite of things they do I don't agree with because they support some things that I'd be ready to die for. Just like how you support Democrats who sometimes are piss poor Democrats."
"You said some people can help themselves. Therefore you must hate welfare." - "Where do you get this non sequitur from?"
And on and on and on. And you're right Grizz, the Echo Chamber kicks in and people now have the added value of other people perpetuating their fallacies and logical failures and before you know it, it's become truth.
It's a total migraine when some fundamentalist does it, and it's no less a migraine because the people doing it are progressive.
edited 21st Nov '12 6:38:11 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorHere's the full quote from Mourdock, I have to run and will reply later:
Hm, so let's sum up, he fully separted the act of the rape from the new life created. He paid respect to the fact others might not see it that way, and reiterated that his loyalty was to the innocent life, not to ignoring the plight of the victim.
And for this, ostensibly, he failed to win an election. God help us all.
It was an honorHe framed his statement as "Rape is awful, but."
It doesn't matter what he was going to put after the but. It could have been "puppies are great." You do not ever use the statement "rape is awful, but." It only ever ends badly. Rape is awful, full stop. Deal with other crap separately.
edited 21st Nov '12 6:45:34 AM by Chalkos
![]()
![]()
Very much this. His mistake was in directly connecting the rape and the life. If you want to speak on the implications a wholly pro-life stance has on the subject of birth by rape, you really must put some distance between the rape and the birth.
edited 21st Nov '12 6:50:42 AM by OhnoaBear
"The marvel is not that the Bear posts well, but that the Bear posts at all."
x whatever: That's still awful. It's not exactly saying that the pregnancy should be seen as a consolation/compensation/damn-I-can't-find-the-exact-English-word for the rape victim, but it's close to it.
edited 21st Nov '12 6:52:14 AM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."You guys are very aptly demonstrating the very thing that will undermine the progressive movement.
You made your point that you don't agree with Mourdock's statements (for the record, I very much agree with him). But that's not the point.
The point is no matter how much you chant "He was wrong! He was stupid! He was reprehensible!"; it does NOTHING to change the fact that all the people from Rachel Maddow, to MSNBC, to this very site, who distorted the meaning of his words are guilty of, at best, piss-poor reading comprehension skills, and at worst, rank hypocrisy.
Shima's profile quote sums it up. "Reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn't go away." Switch out 'reality' and put in 'truth' and the statement stands.
And part of claiming the moral high ground is not resorting to lying or distortion. Or, are those rules only to be applied when convenient?
edited 21st Nov '12 6:57:00 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honor(got a few more minutes of wifi)
This is true because their opponents have mounted a massive campaign of lies to paint them as pro-rape and anti-women.
There's a difference between assuming they are misinformed even in the face of their attempts to reasonably explain their views and pointing out that a view they have expressed is actually false.
edited 21st Nov '12 7:00:26 AM by EdwardsGrizzly
<><No matter how much you clutch your pearls and wring your hands, Maxima, the contents of internet forums and Huff Po comment threads is not going to undermine the Progressive movement. We can just point to the other sides forums and threads.
![]()
&
This is POLITICS. There is no moral high ground, and everybody lies.
edited 21st Nov '12 8:26:44 AM by Fish1
![]()
![]()
@The Starship Maxima: I read the quote, as posted
by Edwards Grizzly, as "any and all pregnancy is always good, no matter the cause". Is that how you understand it and what you agree with?
edited 21st Nov '12 7:03:15 AM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."![]()
![]()
![]()
Then we need to change politics. You might be willing to live in a political world where everyone lies and manipulates but I want both those I support and those who run absent them to be held to a better standard than that.
Has anyone expressed shock? So far it seems to be more annoyance and anger at the other side lying and Starship and Grizzly are making the very valid point that we should be getting (at least) just as annoyed at our own side when they do it.
Edit:
X5 Okay, then once you're back I will explain why I think his statement (as quoted by you) is offensive and makes me strongly feel he should not hold office.
edited 21st Nov '12 7:13:25 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

This is one reason why it's important to be prejudiced in favor of tolerating dissent. Wait until substantially after it seems to you justified in ejecting a member from the group, before actually ejecting. If you get rid of the old outliers, the group position will shift, and someone else will become the oddball.
edited 21st Nov '12 4:30:07 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.