Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
-_-
Are you obsessively refreshing, INUH?
>"something that's politically incorrect but has to be said in our society"
Fuck you.
No, I'm just that good.
And it didn't take me long to type that.
It makes sense in a twisted sort of way. A lot of social conservatives claim that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children because children can only be raised properly by a man and a woman. But by that very same logic, being raised by a single parent should be even worse.
God forbid a gay single parent try to raise a child.
edit: Wisconsin Lawmaker Wants Women to Remain in Abusive Relationships.
""If they can re-find those reasons and get back to why they got married in the first place it might help," he told a local news station.
Yes, ladies. Try and forget the fact that he is beating you. For the sake of your children (who will grow up far more emotionally devastated from an abusive household than a single parent household).
> wisconsin lawmaker
Is whoever this is a state senator up for recall?
...
> Representative Don Pridemore
Damnit.
> If they don't grow up with married biological parents, Pridemore says, "kids tend to go astray."
Oh what the fuck now. Even adoptions are bad.
> Grothman, for his part, continues to defend his controversial bill. Now, though, not only is single parenthood a factor in child abuse, women in particular are to blame for it.
> [Glenn] Grothman (republican state senator from a blood-red district)
1. Oh, it's that douchebag again. As in, the same guy who called the protesters slobs back in early 2011.
2. STOP USING THE GREAT NAME OF THE SQUIRE OF CYRUS, YOU ASSHOLE.
I just started a thread on OTC about this, seeing as I couldn't find another one with the same topic. Here's the text of the opening post, reproduced:
----
Remember Wisconsin state senator Glenn Grothman, who called the early-2011 protesters at the state capitol "slobs"? Well, he's been involving himself in controversy again.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/proposals/sb507
(Yes, this is approximately month-old news now. If a thread already exists for this, please let me know.)
Senate Bill 507, which requires the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board "to emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect."
* http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/wisconsin-bill-claims-single-moms-cause-child-abuse-011200419.html Shine from Yahoo article on this issue
* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/glenn-grothman-wisconsin-law-single-parenthood-child-abuse_n_1316834.html Huffington Post article on this issue
* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/07/glenn-grothman-unplanned-pregnancies_n_1327940.html Huffington Post article on Grothman's response to this issue
Note 1: This bill did not pass, and the Wisconsin State Senate is not currently in session. I am not sure whether this means the bill is dead.
Note 2: Grothman cites studies that have shown that kids are about "twenty times" more likely to be abused if they are living with single parents. Actually, according to Politifact, it's just one study, and the study finds that the "twenty times" difference is between kids living with married biological parents and kids living with single (as in unmarried) parents and their partners. Glaringly, there is nothing about single parents who do not live with any other adults, which this bill seems to target.
This may be because Grothman provides the following as his reasoning:
----
So yeah, it turns out this isn't quite Pridemore's fault first, it's Grothman's fault.
I'm not sure what pisses me off more. The fact that I was raised by a single mother and I know how much horseshit this all is, or the fact that these guys are legislators in my state.
The second one, because you can't change the fact that some people will believe this horseshit, but you can (to varying extents) change how much of a soapbox they have.
Unfortunately, Grothman evaded the recalls by being a Republican in a very red district. There are a few more recalls coming up soon if you want to find other ways to cockblock him.
Oh, just for kicks, Grothman has never been married or had children.
Does the bro have any evidence for this other than the word of his preacher? I mean, at least have some statisticians cool up a survey with loaded questions and correlation-is-causation in order to back up such a bill.
Check out the link to Politifact that I posted. While it (sadly) rates his statement as "true", read the details: He based it on a study that found a 0.5% rate of child abuse in families with married biological parents and 9.9% rate of child abuse in families (if you can call it that) with a single (as in, not married) parent living with 'eir partner.
Well the insanity doesn't stop in Wisconsin does it?
Not until Scott Walker leaves office and the Republicans lose control of the state senate during a legislative session (they're currently tied due to a resignation but the senate is not currently in session).
And in the longer term, not until the recent fad of ultra-conservatism recedes.
You know what pisses me off most about Walker's supporters? The second you try to show them you have plenty of well researched proof he is a bad governor they don't want to listen. Blah blah blah anti union sentiment from people who are sick of union dues and don't quite get that why without something like unions or collective bargaining to force businesses to stay in line, worker exploitation just becomes outrageous.
Okay I'm more angry that they never let my cite sources or bring up info against Walker or other things. It's like the whole "well that's your opinion and this is mine" mindset shuts people's brains down to the idea of examining the freaking situation and information.
Bluh, just venting about politics with friends and acquaintances.
> You know what pisses me off most about Walker's supporters? The second you try to show them you have plenty of well researched proof he is a bad governor they don't want to listen.
That's basically them seeing everything as either on their side or against their side.
No amount of throwing facts at people with that attitude is going to change their opinion.
Think of it like those videogame enemies where, if you hit them a normal way they put up a shield and you do no damage no matter how many times you keep on hitting them after that.
I suggest:
* instead of thinking of convincing them directly, simply hint at how the policies are bad, when they come up in contexts other than politics. Don't do it like a drive-by shoehorned mention, but reference Walker's policies only when they're conversationally appropriate. And after you do this, don't continue this topic. Just give people some time for the thought and the fridge logic to sink in.
* If you are going to confront them directly, ask them to fill in the details for you. This might not work as well since Walker's policies tend not to be the sort of completely unrealistically crazy shit that tea-partiers usually aspire to (such as no taxes, ever), and depends a lot on accepting facts that, while, they simply come to dismiss, such as the fact that there's far less voter fraud than disenfranchisement.
* when talking to these people, take their personal perspective and explain why something would affect them or someone they know negatively. This, of course, requires a bit of prep-work on your part.
* when they complain about a particular problem that one of Walker's policies supposedly aims to solve, ask them whether the policy could create a different problem. Remind them that no policy is perfect, and you're going to have some of both types of problems, and if they're a policymaker they're going to have to decide NOT how to stamp out problems entirely but rather where to strike a balance between the two.
** if they still don't acknowledge that pushing things too far toward one side could be a problem, choose your questions to lead them to an acknowledgement that a problem like worker exploitation can exist. I think it's best when you lead them to the acknowledgement through their own answers to questions rather than simply throwing a bunch of your own arguments at them. If you do the latter, they can just claim you're stringing things together. But if they string things together themselves...
Sorry, I made a mistake here.
Hey LouieW, sorry about not continuing the PM conversation we were having earlier about Wisconsin politics. I know a lot's been happening there, but I've just been too busy with a stack of applications upon applications. That said, you can see my thoughts on the matter in my posts here and in the Wisconsin-related threads on the TVTF--there's nothing I would have said to you that would be different anyway, as I don't know your political opinions but you know mine, and you can clearly see the reasoning that leads me to those opinions.
Oh, just wanted to link one of my posts over at TVTF on this particular issue: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13327068680A34405800&page=2#33
Here I explain the flawed logic behind what seems at first glance to be a good idea.