Hmmm. It looks like Germany has fairly strict limits on the availability of abortion; it’s on-demand up to 12 weeks, but requires mandatory counseling first. It seems like perhaps expanding abortion access to on-demand up to the point of realistic fetal viability and eliminating the counseling requirement might–might–have led to a different outcome here.
I wonder if she had attempted to terminate her pregnancy prior to this point?
For the people saying that she should have just adopted the infant: that’s extremely difficult for someone to do, even if they know that they don’t want a child or are not capable of caring for it. I’ve seen multiple teens end up keeping children that they didn’t plan on, didn’t want, and had no means to care for, all because they couldn’t go through with an adoption in the end.
The government has called up an expert committee and asked for their opinion on potential reforms.
The report came in April, and it strongly suggests making it actually legal in the first 12 weeks (it is currently only decriminalized) and getting rid of the mandatory counseling. They leave it up to the lawmakers to deal with week 12 to 22 (where the fetus starts being able to sustain itself).
The government has not yet started on n implementing this, however.
Blindsided because he didn’t think Kyle would say something that could legitimately hurt JB’s image and thus the rest of his career, which is clearly the priority over Tenacious D.
Right, although he explicitly talks about being blindsided by the politically violent nature of the comment, it sounds disingenuous
Tenacious D has a 9-minute song on their first album about comedically overthrowing the government where the ultimate joke is that they assassinate each other simultaneously
The really funny thing is the Democrats don’t even need to lie, and it sounds like a lie because of how batshit crazy these republikkklowns are. I mean, just the fact they want to elect a guy that paid a porn star for sex while his wife was home pregnant, is a racist rapist with 34 felonies. Think about that for minute. They lost their fucking minds over a TAN SUIT. Can you imagine a Democrat running with half the crimes this orange turd did? It would be chaos, but for them, he’s their idol. It’s really unreal.
I stand with Kyle. I love Jack Black but fuck this fucking fake outrage. What comes out of Trump’s mouth and the plans he has for this country and certain demographics are infinitely more offensive.
JB’s response may be more of a concern for their safety than just an attempt to mitigate bad publicity. There are a lot more Trump supporters with guns than without.
Fearing for their safety on an Australian tour? No, if you read the article the response is all political and Australian politicians were calling for the band’s deportation.
What makes you think the outage is fake? If he doesn’t believe in political violence (doesn’t seem like that should be a controversial opinion even if you disagree), or at least believes in separating his private thoughts from his stage personality, I imagine the outrage is completely real. I’d imagine he very much did not want Kyle to implicate him by saying it in a very public venue with Jack on stage, even if he privately agrees.
I don’t know who he is in private but his public face is very much, “it’s all about the music, man!” and being innocuous. Being divisive can only hurt his popularity, and very much his bottom line as he and anyone thinking of casting him have to worry about boycotts and review bombs, to say nothing of targeted political violence against him and his fans.
Also, yes Trump and his followers espouse political violence. Do we want to normalize that? Really? That’s a scary thought to me because I don’t know how we put that genie back in the bottle. Right now it remains outrageous when the right does it, but if the left does as well then we can’t condemn it without hypocrisy. It’s just the new normal - we kill each other when we can’t get what we want through other means.
That thought very much frightens me because I don’t know how we all walk away from the precipice. I get Jack’s perspective and I’d be outraged about being put in the position of seeming to endorse that as well.
I guess bring on the downvotes if you must. I’ve got nothing to lose by speaking my mind.
Read the “paradox of intolerance” if you have not, and wonder after you do who and for what purpose the ‘citizens should never ever resort to violence’ idea serves best. I upvoted you because i like when people speak their minds knowing they’ll be unpopular. I do disagree with you, but ive come to my new belief recently and don’t look down on those i feel are walking on the same path i walked
I’m aware of it. And I agree with it. It’s nuanced and hard to really get into without writing a book here. I hate Trump and I can’t even say I haven’t considered how much safer I’d feel if he died. That I haven’t at times impatiently wondered when the backlash against stochastic terrorism would inevitably rise up and answer violence with violence.
Hell if the assassin had gotten him, I think a lot more people would condemn the act from the safety of a post Trump world. But such things threaten to spill into open violence. And who can de-escalate if both sides are doing it? And without de-escalation, what is the end of violence? A horrific outcome no matter which side wins.
If we won, if we murdered and assassinated every white suprematist, every anti-abortionist, every homophobe and transphobe, every billionaire, who would we even be? And when would we stop?
I could go on at great length, but I’ll stop here. I appreciate respectful disagreement. I’m not anyone’s enemy here. I value the discussion and opinions I don’t share. I might not have spoken up but I didn’t see anyone else saying the things I felt needed to be said.
Anyway, salute brother (or however you identify). May we all come out on the other side of this thing together.
Anyone standing behind Trump is a traitor insurrectionist flying the flag of a felon. The world will be a far better place without Trump, and anyone expediting that outcome has my respect as a patriot.
Populist are the true destroyers of civilizations.
A martyr Trump would be much much worse than a living one. Trump needs to be further discredited and the plutocracy as it exists today dismantled, otherwise things will either stay the same or get worse. Tall order, I know, but an assassinated Trump now would be terrible.
It’s probably more they don’t want crazy fucking trumpers taking shots at them. This is a safety issue a very real one. The band probably agrees with what he said but not enough to get killed over it. Which again is a very real possibility. These crazies almost got Trump with his security while Jack black walks around the venue of his shows alone before gigs.
I mean, yes…? That’s the way sexuality works. Very few people are completely straight or completely gay. A fantastic example is prison; you put a bunch of guys in prison, and most of them are going to be having sex with other men, at least sometimes. It’s not that they’re not straight in any normal sense, but that the overall sex drive is strong enough to overcome gender preferences.
It’s just not a big deal. Let people be people, as long as everyone involved is consenting, and they aren’t causing direct, immediate harm to other people.
Kinda wild to bring up the sexual repression that we punish our prisoners with, that contributes to the negative outcomes of our “correctional” system, and conclude that it’s “not a big deal”.
I know what you’re trying to say, but this is the worst example I can imagine.
Would you prefer I used the British Navy in the tall ships era as an example instead?
Same principle: when you have a bunch of people together with no access to their preferred gender, they’re going to tend to have sex with their non-preferred gender.
Maybe for 30+. It absolutely is not the norm for younger generations. Heck, at that age no one wants to be normal in any case: it’s seen as boring and potentially problematic. All this is to say that I think a lot more people say they are sexually fluid than are actively seeking non-hetero relationships.
I think this is one thing that evolves with age rather than being generational. In the 90s a lot of teens and early college students identified very publicly as bi. A few years later, most of the people I knew settled into one way or the other as their hormones came down to earth and their social status settled.
It further notes that scientific agencies such as NOAA are “vulnerable to obstructionism of an Administration’s aims,” so appointees should be screened to ensure that their views are “wholly in sync” with the president’s.
do we want flood-risk predictions sponsored by a flood-insurance company, or heat advisories from an air-conditioning conglomerate?
The agency is home to one of the most significant repositories of climate data on Earth, which includes information on shifting atmospheric conditions and the health of coastal fisheries, plus hundreds of thousands of years’ worth of ice-core and tree-ring data.
Eliminating or privatizing climate information won’t eliminate the effects of climate change. It will only make them more deadly.
Tell people 2025 would do this. No federal weather means local counties would have to pay Big Business for tornado/hurricane warnings. We’d pay more for fish because fishermen can’t get data unless they pay. Plane schedules become even less reliable AND cost more because the government stops tracking upper level wind speeds.
Look: we want people who get a salary for doing accurate work rather than people who get paid to say whatever the bossman want to hear. Ask people to imagine how it would work if Google, NBC, Amazon, and Fox each sunk the money for trying to replicate the existing infrastructure and then sold pieces of it to paying customers – such as Allstate, CBS, and Delta Airlines. Everyone else would have to HOPE they were getting complete data and have to wonder what was missing. Noticing record highs and lows would become proprietary and forbidden from broadcast in a way akin to being disallowed from referencing “The Superbowl” unless you pay for a license. How’s any of that going to make things better?
P.S. This article is posted to several communities, so I’m reiterating this post repeatedly.
. . . so appointees should be screened to ensure that their views are “wholly in sync” with the president’s.
This is what ultimately kills fascism when everything else fails. People in high positions are chosen for loyalty first and competence a distant second. Combine that with eating each other in purity contests, and you have a political philosophy that’s doomed from the start.
Only question is how much damage it does to everything else before it completes the cycle.
– but doing it in the first place is a symptom of fascism and other repressive systems. It’s the sort of crap that ruins anything where data is important… tho musicians screening who’s gonna join their band might be alright.
Yep, at the end of the day government is a combination of the exciting and political with the boring, necessary, and apolitical. The former gets you in, but you better not fuck up the latter or you’re lucky if you just lose power.
In fairness, I would was flood risk warnings from flood insurance companies. The more you lose, the more they have to pay out. It’s in their interests to give up to date flood warnings
Point taken, but would they warn non-customers? Would they bother making forecasts for rural areas or other places where it wasn’t cost-effective for the number of properties they insure?
The comment is criticizing the fact that Trump can seemingly say and do whatever he wants and gets away with it. While if anyone else does it they’re called out on it.
So you think the implication of the original post was “everyone should be able to make disrespectful comments about people that almost die and it’s ok”?
Or is the implication “it’s not ok for people to make disrespectful comments about people that almost die”?
This isn’t complicated, those are the only two interpretations of the original comment. Only one of them is a realistic interpretation, and it - along with a lot of comments in this thread - are overtly hypocritical.
Don’t think I’ll win over you or the hypocrite-hivemind, and I don’t particularly care. Later.
Dragging the whole US down into a landscape where political assassination is acceptable is exactly the right’s goal. As soon as it’s normalized even a little bit, that little tail which currently has a handful of right-wing nuts with pipe bombs and hammers who is actually acting on it is gonna grow to encompass a huge, MASSIVE number of Facebook uncles
And then I can guarantee that all the people who are celebrating this will no longer be celebrating
Your idea that the violence will wind up mainly directed against anyone other than the politicians working for good outcomes, and vulnerable ordinary people both in and out of the US, is unfounded.
I feel like this is one of those “output only, no input” conversations
I am suggesting that the people who will be “terrified” and “fear for their lives” will be working people trying to organize a better future, and politicians (such of them that even exist) that are aligned with working people. And that the people working on behalf of the shareholders will be A-ok, mostly speaking, because they’ll be the ones whose followers are doing most of the politician-shooting, and have plenty of money to organize good security for themselves.
You can read “How Democracies Die” or “On Tyranny” for a lot more in depth characterization of how it often plays out historically speaking. I get what you’re saying but I think it is a comically rosy picture of how violent revolutions against oppressive political movements turn out in reality.
Random political violence by the right just happened
The idea that that can be consistently relied upon to aim also at the right, and productive of some useful political output in terms of justice for working people, is what I am saying is unfounded
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.