Page 22 | I think the spell is finally broken...

AliceNutterWasAWoman · 24/01/2025 00:09

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 23/01/2025 23:42

"Basing federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself."

There's a philosophical technique called "thought experiment", a well-known example of which is the Trolley Problem, in which the subject is asked to choose between two undesirable outcomes. Children also similarly conduct thought experiments, usually of a more fantastical nature like "which is worse: being eaten by a shark or burned by a dragon?".

Someone I knew a long time ago once polled his LiveJournal friends with a childish-seeming question "which is worse: paedophiles or Hitler?" One of the respondents commented that it depends on the circumstances, because a mother seeking someone to babysit her blonde-haired blue-eyed children whilst she goes to the shops will be better choosing Hitler, whilst Jewish people looking for someone to run 1930s-40s Germany would be better choosing the paedophile. Following these threads, that LiveJournal post from over twenty years ago returns to my mind.

The US presidential election effectively asked the electorate "which is worse: a rapist who has a track record of keeping (or at least trying damn hard to keep) manifesto promises, or a woman who, based on her party's track record, will break manifesto promises?" The people weren't voting to choose someone to be their sister's plus-one at a wedding or chaperone their daughter at a gynaecological examination, they were voting to choose someone to run their country. In that context, being a rapist matters less than being someone who can be trusted to keep manifesto promises.

Orwell said via Winston Smith in 1984 that "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two is four. From that, all follows." If one presidential candidate believes something akin to "two plus two is five" and calls you a bigot for dissenting, whilst the other is a rapist who defends your right to say that "two plus two is four" and signs an EO on day one to stop the government agencies from saying that "two plus two is five", the rapist is honestly the better option.

Edited

Show quote history

Really good, thought-provoking post. Thanks

TempestTost · 24/01/2025 02:43

Knowitall69 · 23/01/2025 23:58

AND... he's just declassified the JFK files!!!

OMG!

Wow. Gosh.

I guess it was sixty years ago, it's probably time.

He certainly has a sense of timing and showmanship though. Or someone on his staff does.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 24/01/2025 04:07

OvaHere · 24/01/2025 00:05

RFK and MLK too.

This will be interesting.

Show quote history

He's going to give the pen he signed those orders with to RFK Jr. It's an unnervingly sweet gesture from the Orange One.

ArabellaScott · 24/01/2025 06:49

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 23/01/2025 23:42

"Basing federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself."

There's a philosophical technique called "thought experiment", a well-known example of which is the Trolley Problem, in which the subject is asked to choose between two undesirable outcomes. Children also similarly conduct thought experiments, usually of a more fantastical nature like "which is worse: being eaten by a shark or burned by a dragon?".

Someone I knew a long time ago once polled his LiveJournal friends with a childish-seeming question "which is worse: paedophiles or Hitler?" One of the respondents commented that it depends on the circumstances, because a mother seeking someone to babysit her blonde-haired blue-eyed children whilst she goes to the shops will be better choosing Hitler, whilst Jewish people looking for someone to run 1930s-40s Germany would be better choosing the paedophile. Following these threads, that LiveJournal post from over twenty years ago returns to my mind.

The US presidential election effectively asked the electorate "which is worse: a rapist who has a track record of keeping (or at least trying damn hard to keep) manifesto promises, or a woman who, based on her party's track record, will break manifesto promises?" The people weren't voting to choose someone to be their sister's plus-one at a wedding or chaperone their daughter at a gynaecological examination, they were voting to choose someone to run their country. In that context, being a rapist matters less than being someone who can be trusted to keep manifesto promises.

Orwell said via Winston Smith in 1984 that "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two is four. From that, all follows." If one presidential candidate believes something akin to "two plus two is five" and calls you a bigot for dissenting, whilst the other is a rapist who defends your right to say that "two plus two is four" and signs an EO on day one to stop the government agencies from saying that "two plus two is five", the rapist is honestly the better option.

Edited

Show quote history

Yes. For some people these issues are theoretical. For others, they are directly and personally very real.

A parent concerned that their.vulnerable child is at risk of being sterilised and mutilated will have that issue front and centre.

themostspecialelfintheworkshop · 24/01/2025 10:00

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 23/01/2025 23:42

"Basing federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself."

There's a philosophical technique called "thought experiment", a well-known example of which is the Trolley Problem, in which the subject is asked to choose between two undesirable outcomes. Children also similarly conduct thought experiments, usually of a more fantastical nature like "which is worse: being eaten by a shark or burned by a dragon?".

Someone I knew a long time ago once polled his LiveJournal friends with a childish-seeming question "which is worse: paedophiles or Hitler?" One of the respondents commented that it depends on the circumstances, because a mother seeking someone to babysit her blonde-haired blue-eyed children whilst she goes to the shops will be better choosing Hitler, whilst Jewish people looking for someone to run 1930s-40s Germany would be better choosing the paedophile. Following these threads, that LiveJournal post from over twenty years ago returns to my mind.

The US presidential election effectively asked the electorate "which is worse: a rapist who has a track record of keeping (or at least trying damn hard to keep) manifesto promises, or a woman who, based on her party's track record, will break manifesto promises?" The people weren't voting to choose someone to be their sister's plus-one at a wedding or chaperone their daughter at a gynaecological examination, they were voting to choose someone to run their country. In that context, being a rapist matters less than being someone who can be trusted to keep manifesto promises.

Orwell said via Winston Smith in 1984 that "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two is four. From that, all follows." If one presidential candidate believes something akin to "two plus two is five" and calls you a bigot for dissenting, whilst the other is a rapist who defends your right to say that "two plus two is four" and signs an EO on day one to stop the government agencies from saying that "two plus two is five", the rapist is honestly the better option.

Edited

Show quote history

Spot on. Excellent post.

themostspecialelfintheworkshop · 24/01/2025 10:02

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 24/01/2025 04:07

He's going to give the pen he signed those orders with to RFK Jr. It's an unnervingly sweet gesture from the Orange One.

Show quote history

Oh wow, that is genuinely lovely.

I may actually have a slight tear in my eye (but I'm on my period so will put it down to that).

BabaYagasHouse · 24/01/2025 10:15

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 23/01/2025 23:42

"Basing federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself."

There's a philosophical technique called "thought experiment", a well-known example of which is the Trolley Problem, in which the subject is asked to choose between two undesirable outcomes. Children also similarly conduct thought experiments, usually of a more fantastical nature like "which is worse: being eaten by a shark or burned by a dragon?".

Someone I knew a long time ago once polled his LiveJournal friends with a childish-seeming question "which is worse: paedophiles or Hitler?" One of the respondents commented that it depends on the circumstances, because a mother seeking someone to babysit her blonde-haired blue-eyed children whilst she goes to the shops will be better choosing Hitler, whilst Jewish people looking for someone to run 1930s-40s Germany would be better choosing the paedophile. Following these threads, that LiveJournal post from over twenty years ago returns to my mind.

The US presidential election effectively asked the electorate "which is worse: a rapist who has a track record of keeping (or at least trying damn hard to keep) manifesto promises, or a woman who, based on her party's track record, will break manifesto promises?" The people weren't voting to choose someone to be their sister's plus-one at a wedding or chaperone their daughter at a gynaecological examination, they were voting to choose someone to run their country. In that context, being a rapist matters less than being someone who can be trusted to keep manifesto promises.

Orwell said via Winston Smith in 1984 that "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two is four. From that, all follows." If one presidential candidate believes something akin to "two plus two is five" and calls you a bigot for dissenting, whilst the other is a rapist who defends your right to say that "two plus two is four" and signs an EO on day one to stop the government agencies from saying that "two plus two is five", the rapist is honestly the better option.

Edited

Show quote history

Following quietly- but just had to jump in to say this is the best post I've seen on any or the many threads on this.
Thank you for taking the time to think out amd post this @selffellatingouroborosofhate

Chersfrozenface · 24/01/2025 10:17

themostspecialelfintheworkshop · 24/01/2025 10:02

Oh wow, that is genuinely lovely.

I may actually have a slight tear in my eye (but I'm on my period so will put it down to that).

Show quote history

I'm old and cynical.

I doubt whether that gesture actually came from Trump's own brain.

It reads to me like PR people saying "Look, we've got a Kennedy!", USian political royalty, with a side order of "Nyah, nyah!" to the Democrats.

Still, I expect Bob appreciates it.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 24/01/2025 14:49

OvaHere · 23/01/2025 20:51

Janice Turner in The Times

Democrats yielded the gender war’s key weapon

Last week the US House of Representatives passed the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act. One by one, Republicans rose to make the simple point that as parents or grandparents of female track stars or soccer players they thought it unfair, and in some cases dangerous, for girls to compete against male-bodied athletes.

To any Floridian football fan or Montanan marathon runner, this was an unarguable truth. Yet all Democrats (except two from Texas) opposed the bill, rebranding it the “child predator empowerment act” and arguing it would lead to the appointment of genital inspectors — “Taliban-like enforcers” and paedophiles — to look inside the underwear of girls as young as four.
If that sounds deranged, it’s because it was. But what else did the Democrats have? They couldn’t dispute biological advantage or fairness, so they ended up sounding like QAnon loons.

None of this matters now President Trump has signed Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, the executive order that got the loudest cheer from the inauguration crowd. This ticks the entire gender critical wish-list, from fair school sports to removing rapists from women’s prisons and categorically defining woman as an “adult human female”.

Liberals will cry culture war — although they didn’t on President Biden’s first day when his executive order replaced “sex” with “gender identity” in Title IX policy, in effect abolishing women’s rights. Or in 2022 when the White House “lesbian visibility day” was led by Charlotte Clymer and Rachel Levine, both straight biological males. Or when Nancy Pelosi supported the abolition of the word “mother” from House rules.

It takes two to fight a culture war. And on the gender front the Democrats lost. Why? Because they moved beyond fighting for legitimate trans rights — freedom from violence or discrimination at work — into fantastical thinking.
When I’m asked why this issue has such salience amid war and economic crisis, I say: imagine if a politician told you he was a devout Creationist or Flat-Earther. You might agree with him on other matters, but would you trust him? That’s how women feel about lawmakers who deny sex is real.

Trump’s executive order states: “The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system. Basing federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself.” The damn-fool Democrats handed truth to their worst enemy. Can they ever win it back?

Thanks for sharing this, it's very good, I particularly liked

"The damn-fool Democrats handed truth to their worst enemy. Can they ever win it back?"

This is so true, Labour is doing the same thing here, the West wouldn't have Trump's, Farage's and the like if it weren't for the fact that the loony left jumped the shark big time.
And I don't think they can win it back, because they no longer know what the truth is.

AliceNutterWasAWoman · 24/01/2025 15:14

@TheywontletmehavethenameIwant
"The damn-fool Democrats handed truth to their worst enemy. Can they ever win it back?"
This is so true, Labour is doing the same thing here

Not just Labour. Lib dems, Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 24/01/2025 15:18

AliceNutterWasAWoman · 24/01/2025 15:14

@TheywontletmehavethenameIwant
"The damn-fool Democrats handed truth to their worst enemy. Can they ever win it back?"
This is so true, Labour is doing the same thing here

Not just Labour. Lib dems, Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru

Yes, you might say the whole damn rainbow of political colours. 🤣

SionnachRuadh · 24/01/2025 16:07

I'm waiting for the Area 51 files!

Say what you like about the man, he's got a great sense of showmanship. And maybe the best deadpan comic delivery since Leslie Nielsen. It was really weird seeing him work the fryer at McDonalds, because he was simultaneously totally sincere - the man loves McDonalds and you could sense his childlike joy at being there - and also in on the joke.

A savvy Bill Clinton era Democrat might have pulled the same stunt and made it work, but I'm not sure there are any of them left. Try imagining Gavin Newsom doing it and not looking like the world's biggest fake.

If you listen to Trump voters, which most lefties don't - yes, he has enthusiastic fans, as you'd expect with someone who was a celebrity for decades before he was a politician. But lots of his voters are very transactional and many think he's kind of an asshole. They're just prepared to hire an asshole to do some work for them, like you would hire a sleazy lawyer to handle your messy divorce.

The question might be - which is easier, push the Republicans to moderate their unpopular stances, or hope that the Democrats start to acknowledge material reality? Team-based thinking is maybe not helpful here.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 24/01/2025 16:19

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

EasternStandard · 24/01/2025 16:28

@SionnachRuadh I thought that about Area 51 and dead pan delivery

The clip of the WHO EO for example

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 24/01/2025 16:40

Re these EOs: given that any future president can rescind a previous EO, why didn't Obama protect abortion with a day one EO like he promised? The Dems could have used the threat of a GOP president rescinding it to encourage women to vote Dem and gained credibility by Obama signing it. Yet he didn't do that.

Do the Dems actually want to win elections here?

TempestTost · 24/01/2025 18:03

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 24/01/2025 16:40

Re these EOs: given that any future president can rescind a previous EO, why didn't Obama protect abortion with a day one EO like he promised? The Dems could have used the threat of a GOP president rescinding it to encourage women to vote Dem and gained credibility by Obama signing it. Yet he didn't do that.

Do the Dems actually want to win elections here?

I don't think abortion could have been "protected" that way.

As far as I understand it, these kinds of directives don't actually change the law as such. They are more about changing practice, the way other kinds of rules are being implemented, and so on. So with the DEI one for example. It's not changing any laws around discrimination. It's changing policies in the civil service around hiring people in order to meet equity targets, or requiring a business they give a contract to to have enough diversity in the workforce.

If the right to abortion isn't inherent in some other part of the constitution, then the possible solutions would be a constitutional amendment (unlikely to pass, thesearevery difficult and have to have very wide support.) Or a federal level law. But even if passed in both houses, I think that could be vulnerable to arguments it's not properly the role of the federal government to make those decisions and could be struck down by the courts if they agreed..

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 24/01/2025 19:25

TempestTost · 24/01/2025 18:03

I don't think abortion could have been "protected" that way.

As far as I understand it, these kinds of directives don't actually change the law as such. They are more about changing practice, the way other kinds of rules are being implemented, and so on. So with the DEI one for example. It's not changing any laws around discrimination. It's changing policies in the civil service around hiring people in order to meet equity targets, or requiring a business they give a contract to to have enough diversity in the workforce.

If the right to abortion isn't inherent in some other part of the constitution, then the possible solutions would be a constitutional amendment (unlikely to pass, thesearevery difficult and have to have very wide support.) Or a federal level law. But even if passed in both houses, I think that could be vulnerable to arguments it's not properly the role of the federal government to make those decisions and could be struck down by the courts if they agreed..

Show quote history

Yes, you are correct. Obama ran on a promise to use the Democratic supermajority in Congress to codify abortion rights into law... and didn't do it.

Obama reminded of what he said about abortions in 2009 after Roe v Wade is overturned

Former President Barack Obama was reminded of what he said about abortions in 2009 after Roe v Wade was overturned.On Friday (24 June), Obama took to his official Twitter to share a thread of messages about the Supreme Court's ruling."Today, the Suprem...

https://www.indy100.com/politics/roe-v-wade-barack-obama-abortion

Floisme · 24/01/2025 22:24

Thank you self for that link - I'm pretty sure I can remember Obama saying that codifying abortion rights would be the first thing he would do as president.

I wonder how many women's votes he won in the back of that promise?
Has he ever acknowledged that he broke his word or expressed any regret?

TempestTost · 24/01/2025 23:58

The thing is, a president can't just decide that Congress will pass any particular thing he puts in front of them. If Obama had created such a bill, would it have passed through both houses? At best it would have been a close thing.

If there was no chance - and IIRC he didn't have an especially friendly congress - I can see why he wouldn't have tried to do it, it would represent a huge amount of work.

But perhaps a foolish promise without knowing he could accomplish it.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 25/01/2025 00:24

TempestTost · 24/01/2025 23:58

The thing is, a president can't just decide that Congress will pass any particular thing he puts in front of them. If Obama had created such a bill, would it have passed through both houses? At best it would have been a close thing.

If there was no chance - and IIRC he didn't have an especially friendly congress - I can see why he wouldn't have tried to do it, it would represent a huge amount of work.

But perhaps a foolish promise without knowing he could accomplish it.

He had a Democratic supermajority, he didn't even try, and when he was called out on it, he said that he had chosen to focus on the economy instead. If he had realised it couldn't actually be done, surely he would have said so?

This is not a president who was thwarted by the evil anti-choice GOP. This is a president who didn't even attempt to keep a manifesto promise.

By contrast, Trump must have writer's cramp by now from signing the many Executive Orders that he promised to sign. Some of them will be challenged, some will be overturned as unconstitutional or beyond the authority of the president. But he has at least tried to keep his promises.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 25/01/2025 00:32

I just looked up Obama's career. Obama was a Senator before he was President, so he would have known about what could and couldn't be achieved in terms of promising to pass legislation.

If he made a promise that he couldn't keep, he would have known that he couldn't keep it when he made it. So that whole "well it's hard to get laws through Congress and the Senate" thing doesn't fly, because he made that promise to women in full knowledge of that.

He lied to women.

TempestTost · 25/01/2025 00:34

Yes, the extent to which he seems to be trying to implement everything he's said he would as immediately as possible is remarkable.

I suspect it's going to go a huge way toward convincing the electorate that he is in fact different from other political figures who make promises and then forget about them. He's very much reinforcing his brand.

I've started really wondering about the team he has around him, having all these ready to go already. And they are much more well crafted than I expected.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 25/01/2025 00:47

TempestTost · 25/01/2025 00:34

Yes, the extent to which he seems to be trying to implement everything he's said he would as immediately as possible is remarkable.

I suspect it's going to go a huge way toward convincing the electorate that he is in fact different from other political figures who make promises and then forget about them. He's very much reinforcing his brand.

I've started really wondering about the team he has around him, having all these ready to go already. And they are much more well crafted than I expected.

He's had months since the election to pick his staff, if he hadn't done so before the vote, and they've had months since the election to prepare these orders.

themostspecialelfintheworkshop · 25/01/2025 00:48

I think even if you don't agree with what he's doing, a politician doing what he said he would is revolutionary and surprising. Good for him, he got a democratic mandate and he's doing what he said he would - surely that's supposed to be the entire point of democracy? Hopefully he'll start a trend...

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 25/01/2025 00:54

themostspecialelfintheworkshop · 25/01/2025 00:48

I think even if you don't agree with what he's doing, a politician doing what he said he would is revolutionary and surprising. Good for him, he got a democratic mandate and he's doing what he said he would - surely that's supposed to be the entire point of democracy? Hopefully he'll start a trend...

I agree! It would be so much easier to choose who to vote for and convince other people to vote if politicians kept their promises.