Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About smltwnrckr

  • Rank
    Super Member
  • Birthday 01/15/1983

Profile Information

  • Team
    San Jose State
  • Gender
  • Location
    The city of mercy

Recent Profile Visitors

9,223 profile views
  1. I will let the words of others speak for me on this matter, since I found a couple pieces that do a better job than I can right now. However, before I do that, it is worth pointing out that my stance on this issue has been for some time that while personally against abortion in general, I think any abortion legislation should defer to the wisdom and knowledge of the mother and her physician. They are the people closest to the situation and most aware of the implications of the choices the woman faces. Further, the visions of wild-eyed lunatics in scrubs conspiring with cackling witches in patient gowns to curb stomp babies have long been the hobgoblins of right-wing ideologues. They for some reason want nothing more than to insert the government into the moral dilemmas faced by the actual women who actually consider terminating the pregnancy after the first and, god forbid, second trimesters. I held that stance before there was any news about the Virginia and New York laws that good-faith rhetoricians like our fine president say legalize infanticide. And I didn’t bother to read much about these laws because I assumed that my sense of the issue would hold true. I assumed that these laws may or may not have been good ideas, but almost certainly attempted to give women facing impossible choices the flexibility to navigate a tragedy in a way that is both safe and as comforting as possible for them. I assumed the women for whom these laws were written are overwhelmingly women who have been buying baby clothes for 20 weeks and setting up maternity leaves with their places of business until they start to bleed unexpectedly or they get some bad news after a round of tests. Turns out, after some reading, I was almost spot on. I held that stance and posted on it before my family faced our own choices that relate to this matter. Had the right-wing ideologues who talk a big game about “infanticide” had their way, our devastating moral dilemma would have become an unspeakable tragedy. I get that these statements are a little cryptic, and perhaps sometime soon or sometime in the distant future I will post more about this. I think this is a community - despite all the craziness on here and despite the existence of bluetools and the rampant blood lust on here for exterminating SJSU sports - that is often a supportive and open-minded group in the face of sincerity and sadness. At the same time, the rage the pumps through my veins right now when thinking about this issue is a rage that I’ve never felt before. So until that rage turns to sadness, and that sadness subsides a bit to the point where it can be the subject of thoughtful contemplation, I will likely be mute or restrained on this issue for some time. But I encourage everyone to read a few words on the matter that align both with my long-held stance and with my personal experience. And I encourage them to read it with an open heart, and to read it with a little empathy. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/opinion/abortion-virginia-kathy-tran.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/no-virginia-democrats-dont-support-infanticide.html
  2. No. You are wrong. This is about ideological activists inserting the government into the hardest decisions anyone will ever have to make, all under the false pretenses that they make these decisions just because it's easier and more convenient. This particular law is neither here nor there. The fronts or fault lines shift from moment to moment, but this is about one thing-taking agency out of the hands of people who are the only ones who should be making these decisions even if they don't want to make them. Don't lecture me about radicalization. You know nothing of my experience or insight on this matter.
  3. this. people should stop politicizing tragedy and inserting the government into moral dilemmas. no one wants to make the type of decision that laws like this deal with. shame on anyone who suggests otherwise.
  4. I should have stated more clearly that root beer's popularity is a product of prohibition. If the creators of A&W lobbied for the 18th Amendment, would you still drink it? Original sin, I say.
  5. maybe the mountain west is just for losers. even the winners in the conference are losers. #Pac12isNOTcalling
  6. Root Beer is a product of prohibition, so it is inherently bad. Unless you are Mormon. But, that A&W rules. So, there's that.
  7. Based on my own experience (and this is anecdotal), almost all of the issues in this area are caused by instructors who are bad at managing classroom discussion - not by some sort of ideological discrimination. Management of classroom discussion is its own thing, and if you don't have an approach to doing it well in a way that facilitates conversation about the class material in a way that's relavent but also keeps things focused and under control, it can spin out pretty easily.
  8. U of Chicago has been pretty good lately on free speech issues, I think. Don't know enough about the situation you posted about but generally I believe Chicago has taken a few pretty good stances on campus speech, for what it's worth.
  9. You're the dude who continuously makes the argument that San Jose is somehow not objectively better than Fresno by every metric imaginable. LOL @ male tears and gay pants.
  10. Still going with this trope? You're so clever. Ironic, since I'm one of the few on here who actually defends Fresno in its decades of futility in overcoming the squaller and desperation that it is best known for nationwide.
  11. Neither have I. In fact, while I try to avoid it, I bet I grade papers harder if they are more ideologically aligned with my views.