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
![]()
I'm not saying that all fiction is propaganda. What I am saying is that stories have power*. The fiction we consume as children and adults influences our opinions in ways we can't always detect, and as such any bias in that fiction has an impact on voters.
That is the reason propaganda is an effective tool; because even without trying to, it works.
edited 25th Nov '12 3:22:11 PM by OhnoaBear
"The marvel is not that the Bear posts well, but that the Bear posts at all."Yeah, I mean MSNBC is pretty bad, but we should probably try studying them when one of the candidates isn't a flagrant corporate shill whose every other word is readily shown by cursory examination to be factually false and pins his campaign on encouraging constituents to do zero research of their own.
Why?
A startling number of people don't consume any news media. For them, their entire opinion is based on fictional and social media. If news media is a valid discussion point as an influence on the opinion of a part of the constituency, then so is fiction.
![]()
True, this discussion is tangential at best.
edited 25th Nov '12 3:31:51 PM by OhnoaBear
"The marvel is not that the Bear posts well, but that the Bear posts at all."News is about current events and politics, that's why. As in the stuff they tell us is going on right now, and is supposed to be truthful. About facts. That's why it's relevant, and why we complain when someone like Fox has clearly not done the necessary fact checking or some anchor didn't call out an interviewee when they lied.
News has an immediate and direct effect on politics and how we think of them. Fiction does not.
On the Media needing to fact check more: Do you guys remember the shitstorm Fox raised over the Benghazi fact-check? That, right there, is pretty much the reason the media doesn't fact check more. Media try to pander to the largest audience, so that means being as inoffensive, and non-confrontational as possible. If a significant number of people believed that murdering puppies cured cancer, they'd report on the controversy caused by puppy-murdering, and then cite "expert sources" on both sides.
If having convictions about the sanctity of human life makes you a Single-Issue Wonk, then truly, I weep for all the world.
Grizzly, once again, summed up my feelings excellently on the subject, but I'll add this.
If being unwilling to compromise on something as unquestionable as the value of human life gets us ('us' here being classic Republicans..you know, the ones with actual principles..conservative Christians, etc.) labelled as "outdated" and pushes us into "obscurity" and "irrelevance", I say "Then so be it."
There is an assumption that everyone gives a shit about being "in-step with the times" and "not being viewed as a relic." Sometimes, the right thing is the right thing and it's OKAY if that means the world moves on without you.
Maybe it's time the classic civil libertarian Republican bloc stops playing this dumbass game of "Let's pay lip service to our ideals but cater to the the liberal agenda." How about this...stand your ground, and let whatever may be; be.
edited 26th Nov '12 8:00:38 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorOnce again, we seem to be having disagreements about the relative value of human lives under various conditions. Real life is not as black and white as you're making it out to be. Overly simplistic solutions are a hallmark of this type of thinking as well.
edited 26th Nov '12 8:09:47 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Can we do this whole standing ground thing without the legislative gridlock? I'd really like that. There are ways to stand on principle without bringing the whole country to a screeching halt.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Maxima, Grizzly, for curiosity's sake I'm interested in your standpoints on comprehensive sex ed in schools, giving out free contraceptives (for simplicity's sake only those who do not work on the fertilized egg) to adolescents, etc.
In short, preventing the NEED for abortions by preventing unplanned pregnancys.
As someone who is not an US american, I've always found the insistence on "abstinence only" programs combined with the opposition to abortion somewhat...unfortunate.
Or, to the point: Would you hypothetically accept a comprehensive sexual education (explaining both the biological and the 'practial' side), free condoms provided by school and state (and preventive, not abortive, contraceptives for females), and the like in exchange for banning abortion once again?
edited 26th Nov '12 8:16:50 AM by 3of4
"You can reply to this Message!"I believe that Grizzly and Starship have both said they support sex ed and contraception, which places them at odds with many of the folks on their notional side of the fence. In fact, they also support gay rights, Keynesian economic principles, public healthcare, and a number of other things that place them firmly in the modern Democratic camp, except for that one sticking point on abortion.
Leaving aside the debate on when human life begins, one would think that it would be more effective to address the underlying causes of abortion rather than banning the act itself, which will do nothing to stop it, any more than Prohibition stopped alcohol consumption.
edited 26th Nov '12 8:19:59 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The statement that banning abortion will do nothing to stop it strikes me as patently silly. It surely won't totally eliminate it, any more than banning murder has totally eliminated murder, but it will absolutely reduce its prevalence if implemented in any somewhat competent way.
I absolutely support effective sex education. It is, of course, ideally a subject that will be addressed by kids' parents well before they encounter it in school, but in the event parents fail to do so the school can attempt to pick up the slack. Free contraceptives to adolescents should not be done against the will of parents, but otherwise is just another thing which may be a worthy use of government resources and is certainly OK for privately funded organizations to do.
edited 26th Nov '12 8:55:24 AM by EdwardsGrizzly
<><Studies have shown that comprehensive sex education, access to contraception, and public assistance for unwed (particularly young unwed) mothers including adoption placement are the most effective ways to prevent abortions.
It's not like banning guns has stopped gun crime. Or Prohibition stopped drinking. Morality schmorality, it doesn't work.
edited 26th Nov '12 8:59:15 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That post came off a little more...acerbic...than I intended. Sorry.
To Taoist and 3of 4 as Fighteer has stated, I and Grizz both are dedicated to the protection of human life, and no we don't view this as any sort of "relative" value. In our view a human life is a human life, period.
Part of why I distinguish between principled Republicans and the hucksters like Rommey (more on that later) is because they are truly paying lip service only to their ideals. That doesn't just mean they are soft on anti-abortion legislation. Actually that's not the worst offense.
The opportunist Republicans oppose expansion of healthcare, they oppose improving sex-ed, they oppose improving the adoption system. They oppose freakin' FREE CONDOMS! And yet they pay lip service to caring about lives.
The more and more I think about it, I think Grizz is right. This current shuck-and-jive Republicans need to be replaced by the people who care about America and their fellow Americans.
@Fighteer: The point is that Perfect Solution Fallacy is not an answer. We're not going to legalize bank fraud just because it happens under the radar.
You know Grizz, we agree on a great many things. But not here. We're in a catastrophic emergency. Forget about abortions for a moment. The number of HIV and other STD cases in a developed nation like this one are appalling. I say pass out the damn condoms.
edited 26th Nov '12 9:06:25 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorStarship, the difference is that legal punishments, coupled with adequate regulation, do deter bank fraud. And I have to apologize to your sensitivities, but quite frankly, bank fraud causes far more damage in terms of loss and lives ruined than does abortion.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Thanks for your answers.
And like Maxima, I disagree with the "not against the will of the parents" as it plays the adolescents at the mercy of, well, stupid parents. The same stupid people who actually believe that "abstinence only" is something realistic.
I'd say, any adolescent who is in puberty (without a specific cutoff age) should have the option to get contraceptives, and especially condoms, under patient confidentiality from school nurses, clinics and doctors.
The Kids will have sex against their parents wishes if they want it, they should be able to access security for it against their wishes.
"You can reply to this Message!"One thing that makes bank fraud a bad analogy is that banning abortion makes it even more dangerous, as it forces women to resort to risky methods and shady, back-alley doctors to get the job done. An article on the topic.
Furthermore, banning abortions can massively overstrain support systems like orphanages and other foster-care, as Romania discovered when Ceaucescu tried it, resulting in... well, really bad things
.
It's really difficult discussing a muzzled topic, so I'll limit it to my viewpoint. I view abortion as an abhorrent crime against decent civilization, surpassed only by the attitudes that enable it; namely continued misogyny, propagation of ignorance, continued dearth of true family services etc.
The point of using bank fraud wasn't to invite yet another Perfect Comparison Fallacy. It was to say that we our laws are usually formed to prevent crime or harm against the populace. The retort of "They'll just resort to other means" usually doesn't hold water in any context.
It was an honorIf we're going by the simple rubric of lives preserved or saved, legal abortions beats out banning them by miles. It does so because of these simple things: it prevents it from going underground and leaving women at the mercy of people who are not fully trained, operating in extremely filthy conditions which open the women up to deadly infections, people who will gouge them for money in addition to not knowing what they're doing, and then potential deaths from attempting such things themselves without knowing what they're doing.
Quite frankly, we end up with far more dead people banning it than allowing it. "Resorting to other means" does have meaning here.
edited 26th Nov '12 10:23:04 AM by AceofSpades

Ayn Rand is a weird case in which her fiction was basically her pushing her philosophical agenda, which Libertarians then picked up as the basis for their political agenda. In fact, everything she wrote was her pushing her philosophical agenda. Most other fiction doesn't have that kind of impact because that's not the intent of the authors. You don't see people basing a political party on the ideas put forth in Star Trek.
And she never put herself forth as a news channel dedicated to telling us what's happened throughout the day. I damn well expect news channels to tell the truth and to fact check. I do not expect that of the fiction I read or watch.
@Deviant: Most news hated Romney. I'm not taking this one year over all the other decades of Fox's history of extreme partisanship.
Edit: Karl Marx had an issue where he could never figure out how we were supposed to get to the paradise society, which I fully acknowledge. But then I'm not a Marxist communist because I realize that going that far can't work.
edited 25th Nov '12 3:13:33 PM by AceofSpades