posted by CenterBHSFan

I disagree. I would call that some sort of preconceived notions, not racism. I don't consider those to be quite the same thing. One is basically an "old wives tale" and the other is based on what you look like or your birth.

Well, they're both based on what a person looks like.  One is just a subset of another.

The assumption that a black teen in a hoodie is probably dangerous, but a white teen in a hoodie is not worth noticing is logically the same as the assumption that a black kid is more likely to like fried chicken than a white kid.  One is just perceived to be benign, while the other is perceived to be negative.  The logic, though, is congruent.  The same thing would be true of the assumption that a comfortable white adult is the result of growing up with well-to-do parents and having opportunities handed to them.

If it's based exclusively on skin color, then it's really no different.  You can change the description from "the result of privilege" to "inferior," but the logic is the same.

If one is racist, then the other is also.
 

posted by Spock

You mean stereotypes.  Yes they are rooted in reality.  Is some of that reality racist or bigoted or ignorant in its conception......maybr so.  But in the end they are mostly just a way to highlight the reality of people.  

Interesting.  Does that include stereotypes about white people?

Well then now we're just getting into the conversation on the distinctions between implicit biases, perceived biases, racial hierarchy and the high variance between everything else included under that big conversation. I would think that claiming to know the thoughts of everybody and claiming racism in all people would be akin to having some sort of X-Men ability. The trend is coming around where more and more psychologists and sociologists are claiming that things like "implicit bias tests/training" are junk practices. And to me, this dovetails in quite nicely with the idea of the progressive stack that's involved in identity politics. 
My guess is that there will be no definitive proof of racism in everybody nor will there be definitive proof that racism is not in everybody. It's just a reliance on hunches, perception, etc.  But look, you have your opinion about it and I have mine; highly doubtful that one will ever be able to prove the other wrong. But I do think it's an interesting theory to ponder on.

*Edit to add*

Also, if there is some sort of homebrew hooch that gives you the ability to determine that everybody is racist to some degree or other - that shit would own Bitcoin. 

posted by geeblock

Doom and gloom nothing is going to change. People that want abortions are going to get them way before 40 weeks and people who have extreme medical conditions will be able to consult with the doctor to make the best choice. Talk about fake outrage news. 

You are either vastly misinformed on the laws that have or have tried to pass in a couple states recently or have some really messed up morals. I believe it is the misinformed option. You really need to delve into what is allowed under those two (one law, one bill). 

posted by CenterBHSFan

Well then now we're just getting into the conversation on the distinctions between implicit biases, perceived biases, racial hierarchy and the high variance between everything else included under that big conversation. I would think that claiming to know the thoughts of everybody and claiming racism in all people would be akin to having some sort of X-Men ability. The trend is coming around where more and more psychologists and sociologists are claiming that things like "implicit bias tests/training" are junk practices. And to me, this dovetails in quite nicely with the idea of the progressive stack that's involved in identity politics. 
My guess is that there will be no definitive proof of racism in everybody nor will there be definitive proof that racism is not in everybody. It's just a reliance on hunches, perception, etc.  But look, you have your opinion about it and I have mine; highly doubtful that one will ever be able to prove the other wrong. But I do think it's an interesting theory to ponder on.

*Edit to add*

Also, if there is some sort of homebrew hooch that gives you the ability to determine that everybody is racist to some degree or other - that shit would own Bitcoin. 

LOL on the edit.

The rest of this isn't wrong at all, but I suppose that was kind of the point I was hoping to draw out.  We all have a different view on how knowable racism even is within an individual.  As such, what is the point of trying to ask who is and isn't?  I think it's more productive to ask if ideas, beliefs, or actions are racist as opposed to whether or not people are.  People are comprised of all these things, but to label a person racist, we'd need to come up with a certain amount of that makeup that is racist, and as we just demonstrated, we probably can't do that with any level of consensus.

Perhaps that's okay.  Perhaps human beings are too complicated to try to accomplish that anyway, even without consensus.

posted by jmog

You are either vastly misinformed on the laws that have or have tried to pass in a couple states recently or have some really messed up morals. I believe it is the misinformed option. You really need to delve into what is allowed under those two (one law, one bill). 

Based on the comments circulating around yes he said what is being alluded to, however looking at the actual bill it does not say the stupid things he said when asked about it from what i read, but i will admit i didnt get real deep into it.

posted by jmog

You are either vastly misinformed on the laws that have or have tried to pass in a couple states recently or have some really messed up morals. I believe it is the misinformed option. You really need to delve into what is allowed under those two (one law, one bill). 

What he said didn't actually speak to the bill itself, as far as I could tell.  I mean, the idea that someone with significant medical risk and complications can potentially do something that might save their lives without risking criminal charges is not exactly problematic, I wouldn't think.  The abstract of choosing one's own life over another's is almost uniformly understood as reasonable.  It's why we have castle doctrine.  It's why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights.

As for whether or not people are going to wait to have late-term abortions if they know all along that they don't want to have a child, I'd be willing to wager that geeblock is probably right.  They'll more than likely opt to get an abortion earlier rather than later, as was permitted before this most recent law was passed.

I honestly don't see much actually changing.  I don't necessarily like the law or what it might permit, but I doubt that we see a palpable uptick in late-term abortions chosen for any reason other than health risks.  MAYBE sudden, unforeseen financial crises, but even with that, I doubt it will be a significant uptick, statistically.

posted by jmog

You are either vastly misinformed on the laws that have or have tried to pass in a couple states recently or have some really messed up morals. I believe it is the misinformed option. You really need to delve into what is allowed under those two (one law, one bill). 

There was nothing wrong with his post

But there is almost no reason for a late term abortion.  They are hiding behind the whole idea of the mothers health.  3rd trimester babies dont need aborted and killed.  Have the baby c sectioned and adopted.

posted by Spock

But there is almost no reason for a late term abortion.  They are hiding behind the whole idea of the mothers health.  3rd trimester babies dont need aborted and killed.  Have the baby c sectioned and adopted.

It wouldn't have been an option for my wife to have a C-section because of an unacceptable risk for infection (in connection with other factors).  C-section isn't a one-size-fits-all solution, unfortunately.

In theory, a significant level of risk arising that late in a pregnancy is small, so I wouldn't count on this law resulting in a sudden explosion of late-term abortions.  In fact, I doubt the needle moves notably at all.  What woman wants to go through all the effects of pregnancy if they don't have to?  I obviously can't relate, but as an observer, pregnancy didn't exactly look fun, particularly in the third trimester.  I can't imagine someone with the intention to have an abortion would wait that long by choice.  It's counter-intuitive for someone having an abortion for personal preference reasons not trying to avoid unnecessary personal discomfort.

posted by O-Trap

It wouldn't have been an option for my wife to have a C-section because of an unacceptable risk for infection (in connection with other factors).  C-section isn't a one-size-fits-all solution, unfortunately.

In theory, a significant level of risk arising that late in a pregnancy is small, so I wouldn't count on this law resulting in a sudden explosion of late-term abortions.  In fact, I doubt the needle moves notably at all.  What woman wants to go through all the effects of pregnancy if they don't have to?  I obviously can't relate, but as an observer, pregnancy didn't exactly look fun, particularly in the third trimester.  I can't imagine someone with the intention to have an abortion would wait that long by choice.  It's counter-intuitive for someone having an abortion for personal preference reasons not trying to avoid unnecessary personal discomfort.

Yeah, basically this law creates a lot of fake outrage by people who are against abortions in general. They’re yelling and screaming that a bunch of pregnant women in their 8th month of pregnancy are going to abort their babies because they don’t want a baby anymore. And that simply won’t happen. But alas, here we are talking about it. 

posted by SportsAndLady

Yeah, basically this law creates a lot of fake outrage by people who are against abortions in general. They’re yelling and screaming that a bunch of pregnant women in their 8th month of pregnancy are going to abort their babies because they don’t want a baby anymore. And that simply won’t happen. But alas, here we are talking about it. 

There's nothing quite like the lovely vicious circle of the people who are always bitching about the other side and their constant stream of manufactured outrage coming up with their own streams of manufactured outrage.

posted by O-Trap

It wouldn't have been an option for my wife to have a C-section because of an unacceptable risk for infection (in connection with other factors).  C-section isn't a one-size-fits-all solution, unfortunately.

In theory, a significant level of risk arising that late in a pregnancy is small, so I wouldn't count on this law resulting in a sudden explosion of late-term abortions.  In fact, I doubt the needle moves notably at all.  What woman wants to go through all the effects of pregnancy if they don't have to?  I obviously can't relate, but as an observer, pregnancy didn't exactly look fun, particularly in the third trimester.  I can't imagine someone with the intention to have an abortion would wait that long by choice.  It's counter-intuitive for someone having an abortion for personal preference reasons not trying to avoid unnecessary personal discomfort.

I don't think anyone is arguing that millions of women are now going to wait until week 40 to get an abortion.

A couple points however:

1. If the mother's life was in danger (statistically never happens at that late in term but it is possible) it was NOT criminal before this law to have the pregnancy terminated.

2. Just because something "probably won't happen" doesn't mean we should allow it to be legal. I am sorry, but save life/death or MAJOR health issues to the mother, a 3rd trimester abortion should NOT be legal. Every measurable scientific measure says that it is a life at that point. 

The castle doctrine you bring up is a decent analogy. If someone comes into my house to do bodily harm I can legally kill them. If they are just in my yard yelling at me with no weapon I can not. What is the difference? One there is a minor bit of risk to myself but not enough to truly "fear" or worry about my own life, the other the risk is much higher and it would be reasonable to "fear for my life".

Late term abortions are killing a life (scientifically it is a life at that point, regardless who you talk to), with typically only minor risks to the mother. Only in rare (VERY RARE) occasions is there any significant risk to the mother. So, just like the castle doctrine I should only be able to end that life when there is SIGNIFICANT risk to my/her life. 

posted by jmog

I don't think anyone is arguing that millions of women are now going to wait until week 40 to get an abortion.

 

A couple points however:

1. If the mother's life was in danger (statistically never happens at that late in term but it is possible) it was NOT criminal before this law to have the pregnancy terminated.

2. Just because something "probably won't happen" doesn't mean we should allow it to be legal. I am sorry, but save life/death or MAJOR health issues to the mother, a 3rd trimester abortion should NOT be legal. Every measurable scientific measure says that it is a life at that point. 

 

The castle doctrine you bring up is a decent analogy. If someone comes into my house to do bodily harm I can legally kill them. If they are just in my yard yelling at me with no weapon I can not. What is the difference? One there is a minor bit of risk to myself but not enough to truly "fear" or worry about my own life, the other the risk is much higher and it would be reasonable to "fear for my life".

Late term abortions are killing a life (scientifically it is a life at that point, regardless who you talk to), with typically only minor risks to the mother. Only in rare (VERY RARE) occasions is there any significant risk to the mother. So, just like the castle doctrine I should only be able to end that life when there is SIGNIFICANT risk to my/her life. 

My point was sort of related to what you've teased out in the first point.  It was already legal.  The functional result of this law will likely be that things that were already legal will be legal.  That certainly makes the bill redundant and a perfect example of silly bureaucracy, but generally, because of exactly what you mentioned, I don't think it's going to have a palpable effect (except, perhaps, in cases of unforeseen financial crises, which was the only other thing I could come up with).

As for whether or not it "should" be allowed, even if it won't likely amount to much difference, I think that deserves its own thread, as that will quickly become a discussion on the legalities of abortion itself.

posted by O-Trap

As such, what is the point of trying to ask who is and isn't?  I think it's more productive to ask if ideas, beliefs, or actions are racist as opposed to whether or not people are. 

Yeah, I agree with this, wholeheartedly.  

https://www.10tv.com/article/person-upset-abortion-stance-tipped-site-racist-photo

so it was tipped 

posted by geeblock

https://www.10tv.com/article/person-upset-abortion-stance-tipped-site-racist-photo

 

so it was tipped 

Good. If journalists had done their jobs they would have found it themselves. Virginia is becoming a shit show. Now the sexual allegations against the next man up, blames Northam for leaking, now the woman is hiring Ford's lawyers (from Kav case).

As we all expected, the sexual allegations have already been treated completely different since Fairfax has a D following his name. Wapo had written an article but didn't publish, citing they couldn't prove anything. A complete 180 with how they treated the "facts" less than a year ago

posted by iclfan2

Good. If journalists had done their jobs they would have found it themselves. Virginia is becoming a shit show. Now the sexual allegations against the next man up, blames Northam for leaking, now the woman is hiring Ford's lawyers (from Kav case).

As we all expected, the sexual allegations have already been treated completely different since Fairfax has a D following his name. Wapo had written an article but didn't publish, citing they couldn't prove anything. A complete 180 with how they treated the "facts" less than a year ago

Yep.  Run stories they know are not true; withhold stories that are true but damaging to their liberal allies.  Sickening.  And then they have the audacity to be upset when they are called the enemy of people. 

posted by geeblock

https://www.10tv.com/article/person-upset-abortion-stance-tipped-site-racist-photo

 

so it was tipped 

Uhhhh, ya think?

posted by like_that

Uhhhh, ya think?

I dont know why you always have to reply to my posts and get smart but 6 pages ago people were going on on and on as if it was some left wing conspiracy to dig through someones personal life and they couldnt believe people had time for that. at the time i stated it was most likely a disgruntled friend, or ex wife ect that leaked a tip.  but speaking of tip get off my di#k

posted by geeblock

I dont know why you always have to reply to my posts and get smart but 6 pages ago people were going on on and on as if it was some left wing conspiracy to dig through someones personal life and they couldnt believe people had time for that. at the time i stated it was most likely a disgruntled friend, or ex wife ect that leaked a tip.  but speaking of tip get off my di#k

Probably because you post a lot of dumb shit.  Hope this helps.

Also, Inb4 everyone comes in with penis size jokes.  

posted by like_that

Also, Inb4 everyone comes in with penis size jokes.  

Damn! I had a really good one, too >.>

posted by geeblock

I dont know why you always have to reply to my posts and get smart but 6 pages ago people were going on on and on as if it was some left wing conspiracy to dig through someones personal life and they couldnt believe people had time for that. at the time i stated it was most likely a disgruntled friend, or ex wife ect that leaked a tip.  but speaking of tip get off my di#k

I don't mind crude.  But if you're going to try to make a point that should be taken seriously (which you do here), you do yourself no favors by capping it with a sophomoric jab like that.

posted by O-Trap

I don't mind crude.  But if you're going to try to make a point that should be taken seriously (which you do here), you do yourself no favors by capping it with a sophomoric jab like that.

Which point is that?  It is pretty damn obvious someone was out to get Northam.  This is no different than the majority of "bombshells" we see in politics.

posted by like_that

Which point is that?  It is pretty damn obvious someone was out to get Northam.  This is no different than the majority of "bombshells" we see in politics.

That seems somewhat like the point he was trying to make.  He noted that earlier in this very thread, it was seen as a witch hunt to go digging through people's past to discredit them in the present.  It's not a bad point.

Then, he threw in the "get off my dick" comment at the end, which is disjointed in a statement that otherwise seems to be intended to be taken seriously.

posted by geeblock

I dont know why you always have to reply to my posts and get smart but 6 pages ago people were going on on and on as if it was some left wing conspiracy to dig through someones personal life and they couldnt believe people had time for that. at the time i stated it was most likely a disgruntled friend, or ex wife ect that leaked a tip.  but speaking of tip get off my di#k

I made a long post about digging through years/decades worth of material in order to find stuff. In that I mentioned nothing about left wing conspiracy. I still stand by what I said:

1.)Patience of a saint

2.)Making a lot of money or

3.)Hatred of another

If that is what seemed like "left wing conspiracy theory" to you or to anybody else I would strongly suggest that it was because you/they (hope I got muh pronouns right) wanted to see that.
Congrats on being correct in your hunch that it was somebody known to him.