Progressive Ideology

[kramerica.inc]

Another example of "Progressivism makes for very, strange bedfellows..."

https://twitter.com/sallykohn/status/10 ... 1501939712

icon_puke

[Trinity]

Truly.

[youthathletics]

I have not listened to the SOoundcloud portion, but this is just WOW! UVA suspends kid for a year because he asked questions that challenged the speaker.

[MDlaxfan76]

I have not listened to the SOoundcloud portion, but this is just WOW! UVA suspends kid for a year because he asked questions that challenged the speaker.

You need to listen to both Soundcloud recordings, not simply accept the characterization in that right-wing press article.

The young man was pretty clear in the first recording, during the seminar (which was for medical students and how they should be aware of how their words can unintentionally give offense to their patients and their families, or their colleagues, and how to either avoid such offenses or to handle them when they do occur), that his intent was to challenge the premise that physicians should actually care about this topic. He initially sounded fine, reasonable, and actually interested, but then increasingly sounded agitated and hostile, and a comment was made toward the latter part of his questions about his body language.

What I found particularly disconcerting, though, were the comments made by posters below that Soundcloud. Calling the panel "vermin" and all sorts of hateful rhetoric. Somehow, this Soundcloud got distributed amongst a hard-right wing audience, as that sort of response was the bulk of the comments.

The second soundcloud is of the committee hearing a good month later. The young man is immediately discernible as a bit off his rocker (obviously not a clinical diagnosis by me), arguably understandably given the stress of the situation. But it appears that he's lying or dissembling right from the outset, as well as being challenging in a way that is quite disrespectful nor actually responsive to the concern. It's also clear that the committee's concern began with the seminar interaction, but the call for him to appear was due to subsequent behaviors, a series of subsequent interactions that had drawn additional concern.

The comments below that one had more balance, with more coming to the conclusion that he has a serious issue that needs to be addressed before anyone should be comfortable with him interacting with patients.

Bottomline, the young man seemed wound real tight, and hostile to the notion that one is responsible not merely for one's intent, but also for the impact of one's words and actions. Intent matters a ton, but is not the end of responsibility.

This young man appears to disagree.

It's interesting that the hard-right has such difficulty with this concept. Most people get it, certainly the panelists did, that no matter how benevolent one's intent may be, we can unintentionally give offense. And that itself is ok. Our responsibility is to simply learn from our interactions with others, and to thereafter avoid using language that can otherwise be predicted to give offense. Instead, find language that conveys one's true, positive intent. Keep learning.

To ask a doctor to do so seems to me a minimum requirement of patient care.

[cradleandshoot]

I have not listened to the SOoundcloud portion, but this is just WOW! UVA suspends kid for a year because he asked questions that challenged the speaker.

You need to listen to both Soundcloud recordings, not simply accept the characterization in that right-wing press article.

The young man was pretty clear in the first recording, during the seminar (which was for medical students and how they should be aware of how their words can unintentionally give offense to their patients and their families, or their colleagues, and how to either avoid such offenses or to handle them when they do occur), that his intent was to challenge the premise that physicians should actually care about this topic. He initially sounded fine, reasonable, and actually interested, but then increasingly sounded agitated and hostile, and a comment was made toward the latter part of his questions about his body language.

What I found particularly disconcerting, though, were the comments made by posters below that Soundcloud. Calling the panel "vermin" and all sorts of hateful rhetoric. Somehow, this Soundcloud got distributed amongst a hard-right wing audience, as that sort of response was the bulk of the comments.

The second soundcloud is of the committee hearing a good month later. The young man is immediately discernible as a bit off his rocker (obviously not a clinical diagnosis by me), arguably understandably given the stress of the situation. But it appears that he's lying or dissembling right from the outset, as well as being challenging in a way that is quite disrespectful nor actually responsive to the concern. It's also clear that the committee's concern began with the seminar interaction, but the call for him to appear was due to subsequent behaviors, a series of subsequent interactions that had drawn additional concern.

The comments below that one had more balance, with more coming to the conclusion that he has a serious issue that needs to be addressed before anyone should be comfortable with him interacting with patients.

Bottomline, the young man seemed wound real tight, and hostile to the notion that one is responsible not merely for one's intent, but also for the impact of one's words and actions. Intent matters a ton, but is not the end of responsibility.

This young man appears to disagree.

It's interesting that the hard-right has such difficulty with this concept. Most people get it, certainly the panelists did, that no matter how benevolent one's intent may be, we can unintentionally give offense. And that itself is ok. Our responsibility is to simply learn from our interactions with others, and to thereafter avoid using language that can otherwise be predicted to give offense. Instead, find language that conveys one's true, positive intent. Keep learning.

To ask a doctor to do so seems to me a minimum requirement of patient care.

So this has nothing to do with violating this students rights under the first amendment? If burning the American flag is protected free speech please explain why this mans comments should not also be protected. Why?? because you don't like the tone of his voice? IMO this has major league lawsuit written all over it. If your going to have an open discussion in a forum such as this then let it be an open discussion. People of all walks of life can become emotional when discussing something that is important to them. The college wants to label him as needing to have his mental health checked... good grief.

[Brooklyn]

right thinking vs far right "thinking":

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/ ... orfeiture/ Outstanding article, much enjoyment at reading the ideology of the FLP folks being ripped to shreds. I hope all the FLP folks here also read and enjoy. The only danger to you is upon reading your hair might catch on fire.

[seacoaster]

Laughable faux scholarship.

[CU77]

A ridiculous historically inaccurate attempt at fear mongering. It's what comes from majoring in English Literature at a school that doesn't play lax …

And: has this dude ever heard of property taxes??

[jhu72]

Williamson is known for his poor scholarship. He has a problem keeping a job. The National Review would never have hired a clown like this even 10 years ago. It is a sad testament to the decline of conservative thought, the faux scholarship, bull masquerading as intelligent commentary. Can't blame it on Trump, this has been the history of "serious conservative thought" in the 21st century. Twisting one's arguments into a pretzel to justify the insanity and the stupidity of the rank and file. Reciting faux history. The National Review can't sink much lower without changing it's format to that of a "coloring book".

This is not a result of Trump, but a foreshadowing of the age of Trump.

[cradleandshoot]

Williamson is known for his poor scholarship. He has a problem keeping a job. The National Review would never have hired a clown like this even 10 years ago. It is a sad testament to the decline of conservative thought, the faux scholarship, bull masquerading as intelligent commentary. Can't blame it on Trump, this has been the history of "serious conservative thought" in the 21st century. Twisting one's arguments into a pretzel to justify the insanity and the stupidity of the rank and file. Reciting faux history. The National Review can't sink much lower without changing it's format to that of a "coloring book".

This is not a result of Trump, but a foreshadowing of the age of Trump.

Thank you 72 for your always predictable and dull brand of FLP nonsense. You really should be the last person on the planet to criticize anybody. I always enjoy reading how your opinion is superior to the opinions of those you deem to be inferior to your own level of intelligence. In case you forgot it was an OPINION piece. As is always true... we all have opinions, they are just like assholes... every bodies got one. And everybody thinks every one elses stinks worse. You and me both.

[youthathletics]

This is UFB. https://twitter.com/vahousegop/status/1 ... 44576?s=21

[holmes435]

It would be nice if conservatives cared as much about babies and infants and adults as they did fetuses. We might have a much better nation if they did.

[youthathletics]

What are your thoughts on the specific proposal in the video link I provided?

Please share a link or two on how conservatives do not care about babies and infants and adults?

[holmes435]

What are your thoughts on the specific proposal in the video link I provided?

I don't know of any doctors who would ever recommend an killing a viable fetus that late, so it seems pretty sensationalized. Doctors are going to be performing deliveries at that point.

It seems more like working around terminology and rare edge cases - removing a dead fetus from a mother is considered an abortion, so it would probably be used in situations like that, where carrying around a dead baby may be detrimental to a mother's mental health. Or if a baby is going to die immediately after delivery, like if they don't have lungs. Here's the actual bill: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604 ... sum+HB2491

Please share a link or two on how conservatives do not care about babies and infants and adults?

My words were "It would be nice if conservatives cared as much about babies and infants and adults as they did fetuses." That's my opinion and I'm talking about things like general welfare, capital punishment, equal rights, etc.

[youthathletics]

Thanks for your reply holmes. I understand the part about a dead baby in utero completely. When the lady was asked the question in that video link I provided =, around the 45.second mark, her bill allowed the mother to terminate a living baby while she was dilating and the mother was in a clear mental health state.

Maybe it was an unintended consequence or unforeseen error as the bill was written, but she admitted it was in fact the intended result as written.

I simply can not wrap my head around anything positive about that and why anyone would want a law to allow that.

[SCLaxAttack]

It’s actually worse than that, YA. It was no unintended consequence. On at least two occasions during that video this poor excuse for a human structured her answer in attempts to obfuscate.

Step up to the plate lady and just come out with it: Your bill allows for the murder of viable infants, and that’s exactly the way you want it written. You’re scum.

And in NY, Andrew’s proud. Six months to decide wasn’t enough. Hell, maybe the next iteration will be death at four when the mother’s mental health becomes a problem because she won’t know how to deal with the hardship of the higher cost of children’s clothes compared to infant’s.

[holmes435]

Thanks for your reply holmes. I understand the part about a dead baby in utero completely. When the lady was asked the question in that video link I provided =, around the 45.second mark, her bill allowed the mother to terminate a living baby while she was dilating and the mother was in a clear mental health state.

Looks like her message got lost in translation then as the bill doesn't allow the mother to decide to terminate her pregnancy while she was dilating. She's not very clear about it in the video, and the guy asking questions is a lot better at driving the narrative, but she does say that it includes a physician's decision.

The bill would require a doctor to determine it's medically necessary for any third trimester abortions. It's in section § 18.2-74 of the text.

[holmes435]

After looking into it further, you can already have a third trimester abortion in Virginia if it's medically necessary. You need three physicians to say it's necessary, which is overkill IMO. She's just changing it to one physician.

So she's not even proposing something new. Talk about sensationalism by the guy asking the question as well as all those twitter people.

[cradleandshoot]

After looking into it further, you can already have a third trimester abortion in Virginia if it's medically necessary. You need three physicians to say it's necessary, which is overkill IMO. She's just changing it to one physician.

So she's not even proposing something new. Talk about sensationalism by the guy asking the question as well as all those twitter people.

You call it sensationalism... I call it infanticide. What are you going to do next? Are you going to play the role of Nancy Pelosi and lecture us all about immorality. I bet you don't have the balls to be in the same room where a baby is being born because the mother is about to give birth to a live baby and the outcome is that this baby will be murdered. Excuse me, such harsh language for you hypocritical FLP folks. The so very viable unviable tissue mass was murdered at the time of birth. Maybe you can comfort the mother who just witnessed her baby executed in front of her eyes. You never think about those consequences do you Holmes? Maybe you can act like the legislature of NYS and jump up from your chair and give the whole murderous affair a standing ovation and clap your hands wildly with enthusiasm.

Are you willing to sit your ass in that room Holmes and bear witness to the end result? My guess is no. Because you are too much of a coward to see it happen in front of your nose. It is much more "palatable" when it occurs in that faraway place we call a womens reproductive right. That can easily be justified. Because nobody ever has to get up close and personal with the end result. One last point. My wife early in her nursing career use to have to comfort many women who had just had an abortion. Many of these women were tormented and distressed at their decision to end the life of their babies. There was no PTSD for them. Only the badge of honor that you had done the right thing. No problem there girl, just venture out into the world and forget it ever happened. What a f***ed up country we have created. Destroying a human life is the most vile and reprehensible thing on the face of this earth. My 2 sons are the most precious things in my life. The thought of ever not wanting them or just killing them because they weren't convenient for me at the time. I just don't get it, I don't want to understand it and I know I never will.