Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • Freed Up
    • The Soho Forum Debates
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Log In

Create new account

Reason Roundup

The Satanic Temple: If Christians Can Raise Flag at Boston City Hall, We Can Raise Ours Too

Plus: The push to abolish the Senate, Feds hike interest rates by 0.5 percent, and more...

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 5.5.2022 9:38 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
ST flag | The Satanic Temple/Facebook
(The Satanic Temple/Facebook)

Boston was wrong to forbid a religious group from flying a Christian flag outside City Hall, per a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling issued earlier this week. Should the city have to allow a Satanic flag to fly there, too? That would certainly seem to be the implication of the ruling—and now The Satanic Temple is putting it to the test.

In a decision issued Monday, the Court held that since Boston permitted many different private groups to fly many different types of flags outside City Hall, it could not rightfully prohibit a group called Camp Constitution from displaying what it described as a Christian flag. "Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups' flags a form of government speech," the Court noted in a unanimous opinion, which means that refusing to let Camp Constitution raise its flag was a form of impermissible viewpoint-based discrimination that violated the group's First Amendment rights.

The Satanic Temple is responding to the Supreme Court's ruling by applying with the city of Boston to fly its flag in front of City Hall.

The group—which is not so much a bunch of devil worshippers as a group dedicated to protecting free speech, freedom of religion, and separation of church and state—applied to raise and lower its flag this July in celebration of "Satanic Appreciation Week."

"Religious Liberty is a bedrock principle in a democracy, and Religious Liberty is dependent upon government viewpoint neutrality," Satanic Temple co-founder Lucien Greaves said in a statement. "When public officials are allowed to preference certain religious viewpoints over others, we do not have Religious Liberty, we have theocracy."

The city is "carefully reviewing the Court's decision and its recognition of city governments' authority to operate similar programs," a spokesperson from Boston Mayor Michelle Wu's office told CNN. "As we consider next steps, we will ensure that future City of Boston programs are aligned with this decision."

While applications for flag-raising events are still available online, the city's website says that "effective October 19, 2021, the City of Boston is no longer accepting flag-raising applications. We're re-evaluating the program in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to consider whether the program as currently operated complies with Constitutional requirements."

The request to raise a Satanic flag is typical for The Satanic Temple, which is recognized by the IRS as an atheistic religious corporation and "combines theatrical stunts with political activism," as Todd Krainin put it in a 2019 Reason TV video. Its "tenets are about rebellion against authority, checking your beliefs against our best evidence…autonomy, freedom, liberty," Penny Lane, director of the documentary Hail Satan?, told Reason TV.

The group is known for attempts to place Satanic statues in places where religious statues are allowed and to start Satanic clubs at public schools where religious clubs are allowed.

It's also a staunch defender of abortion access. For instance, in August 2021, it wrote to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seeking a religious exemption to prescription requirements for the abortion-inducing drugs mifepristone and misoprostol.

Its members use "these products in a sacramental setting," it said. "The Satanic Abortion Ritual is a sacrament which surrounds and includes the abortive act. It is designed to combat feelings of guilt, doubt, and shame and to empower the member to assert or reassert power and control over their own mind and body." Having to get a prescription "substantially interferes with the Satanic Abortion Ritual because the Government impedes the members' access to the medication involved in the ritual."

The group asserted that "the prescription requirement infringes upon its memberships' religious liberty, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act."


FREE MINDS

Abolish the Senate? Noah Smith rails against progressives who react to things like the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade with calls to blow up (metaphorically) U.S. institutions rather than work to effect change through elections and persuasion. Specifically, he rails against calls to abolish the Senate. The thread starts here:

1/This thread expresses my exasperation with libs who say "The system isn't working for us, we have to tear down the system", or "Institutionalism is dead", or "We have to actually exercise power", etc. https://t.co/9Bt9HdSvAa

— Noah Smith ???????????????????? (@Noahpinion) May 4, 2022

"If you can't get the votes to exercise power through existing institutions, what makes you think you have enough popular support to overthrow the institutions themselves???" Smith asks, going on to note how "talk about going beyond institutionalism, or exercising real power, etc.," quickly leads to empty rhetoric about civil war.

Rather than "civil war muttering" on social media, people should work "to produce change by building supermajority national support via grassroots organizing and mass persuasion," writes Smith. "This is how marriage equality was achieved. But it takes lots of time and effort and compromise." And "in an age when people are used to the instant gratification of getting people fired via social media outrage, the slow exercise of power through organizing and persuasion might seem like horrifyingly antiquated."

11/Yes, you want the Bad People gone NOW, you want justice NOW, you want systemic change NOW.

But no matter how many RTs your angry tweetstorm gets, none of those things will happen NOW. It will be the labor of years, or even decades.

— Noah Smith ???????????????????? (@Noahpinion) May 4, 2022

"If you really want deep and systemic change, take a Twitter break and rediscover the lost art of grassroots organizing and mass persuasion. Because that is the only way most big things get done in a democracy," Smith concludes.

It's a good message for folks on the right as well…

JD Vance believes we're in a "late Republican" period wherein America is Rome awaiting our Caesar. He says, "We're going to have to get pretty wild & pretty far out there."

His allies say, "The phrase 'extra-constitutional' has come up quite a bit."

This is fascist rhetoric. pic.twitter.com/6MmtDbSMJs

— #CeasefireNow (@maxberger) May 4, 2022


FREE MARKETS

The Federal Reserve will raise interest rates by 0.5 percent—"the most aggressive increase made in a single meeting since May 2000," notes Yahoo. Since then, it has only hiked interest rates in increments of 0.25 percent. But "the labor market is extremely tight and inflation is much too high," said Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. "Against this backdrop, today the [Federal Open Market Committee] raised its policy interest rate by a half-percentage point."

Fed Chair Powell: "The current picture is plain to see; The labor market is extremely tight and inflation is much too high. Against this backdrop, today the #FOMC raised its policy interest rate by a half-percentage point." pic.twitter.com/iWrtIhGgqA

— CSPAN (@cspan) May 4, 2022


QUICK HITS

• The White House realizes its hands are tied if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. "Biden has pressed Congress to codify Roe v. Wade, the only mechanism outside the Supreme Court—or a constitutional amendment, which seems even less likely—that could protect abortion rights. But Democrats concede that effort seems out of reach," reports The Washington Post.

• Does returning decisions about abortion to the states increase liberty or shrink it? Nick Gillespie and Josh Blackman discuss.

• Reason's Stephanie Slade offers "a qualified defense of letting states decide on abortion." (See also: Slade and I talking about abortion in this 2019 podcast.)

• Megan McArdle suggests we don't have to worry about birth control bans or states forbidding interracial marriage. Conor Friedersdorf also weighs in:

Same. Though I'm also happy to support an amendment guaranteeing any of that plus more bodily autonomy than most Dems would grant. Want to smoke a flavored vape? Do mushrooms? Take an experimental drug? Sell a kidney to a needy recipient? I don't think the state should stop you. https://t.co/vEs5iVpPiA

— Conor Friedersdorf (@conor64) May 5, 2022

• The Libertarian Party asked members about abortion. "Nobody else has the right to decide if, when and how you become a parent. Nobody else has the right to impose upon your property or your body without your informed, ongoing and unambiguous consent," said one. Another commented: "I want to see abortion end.…However I also know that creating more government and an even more authoritarian police state is not the best we can do and is likely to lead to some horrible outcomes." More answers here.

• The Trans Youth Project tracked 317 American and Canadian children who socially transitioned genders between ages 3 and 12 years old. "The vast majority of the group still identified with their new gender five years later," reports The New York Times, "and many had begun hormonal medications in adolescence to prompt biological changes to align with their gender identities."

• The Osceola County Sheriff's Office* won't reveal information about the officers who killed Jayden Baez last week:

First time I've seen this: @OsceolaSheriff today said his agency had applied Marsy's Law, the victims rights amendment, to both sides of this shooting, shielding the names of the deputies who fired and the people they shot, one of whom was killed and two of whom were arrested.

— Jeff Weiner (@ByJeffWeiner) May 4, 2022

• More companies are pledging to protect employees' abortion access.

• Mutations in two new omicron variants are allowing them to reinfect people who've already been infected with the omicron edition of COVID-19.

Today, new results from our friend @sigallab show that previous infections with Omicron BA.1 will not be sufficient to prevent a second infection with BA.4 and BA.5. This confirm our epi and Evo results suggesting that South Africa may start a new wave of infections with BA.4 & 5 pic.twitter.com/CfDXRX9M85

— Tulio de Oliveira (@Tuliodna) April 29, 2022


* CORRECTION: This post previously misstated the location of the police who killed Jayden Baez.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: William Ruger on Russia's Invasion of Ukraine

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

Reason RoundupFirst AmendmentFree SpeechReligionLibertyFreedom
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (481)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Fist of Etiquette   4 years ago

    Should the city have to allow a Satanic flag to fly there, too?

    Boston? That's a wicked yeah.

    1. Moonrocks   4 years ago

      I don't think that was ever in question.

      1. ThomasD   4 years ago

        Yes, a ruling that found religion specific viewpoint discrimination unconstitutional would apply to all religions.

        This is only "news" to ENB.

        1. BestUsedCarSales   4 years ago

          My only hope is that it draws little attention.

        2. markm23   4 years ago

          It's probably also news to most of Christians supporting religious displays on public property. They don't want a free-for-all, but only free speech for their own sect.

        3. squid_hunt   4 years ago

          She's still licking her...wounds...from the Supreme Court taking away her birth control and religious practice.

      2. Entelechy   4 years ago

        If by specifically you mean Hera and Zeus, quite a few are till growing strong.

        As Camp Constitution's science counselor is a Moonie, they should plant their flag on the dark side

        1. CE   4 years ago

          JEDI Knights for the win.

          1. (Redacted)   4 years ago

            Time Lords!

        2. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   4 years ago

          Worshipers of Pazuzu need a flag to raise too

    2. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

      Has anyone else ever invented a religion created specifically for the purpose of trying to piss off mom and dad?

      1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   4 years ago

        Yes, L Ron hubberd did that

        1. Stuck in California   4 years ago

          I was thinking the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but yours is even better! Kudos.

          1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   4 years ago

            Hippies.

        2. squid_hunt   4 years ago

          Hubbard was trying to make money.

      2. BYODB   4 years ago

        Pretty sure this 'church' was invented purely to piss off fundamental Christians. The name itself is pretty much custom built to make their heads spin and start legal fights.

        Which is hilarious since they seem to want to say that they're all rationalists and humanists, but if that was the case their name shows that they're really just trolling more than anything else. They might as well have named their entire religion "We Fuck Kids", it would be about as inflammatory.

        And that's fine enough if they want some tax breaks, I guess, but it's also pretty bizarre. Can't say I understand it myself.

        1. MasterThief   4 years ago

          For the most part anyone identifying as Satanist is just an immature edgelord looking to stand out and piss people off. There are some brands of it that focus on principles of enlightenment and focused self-enrichment. I would say they are more philosophical with a love for gothic imagery than actually religious.
          That said, I don't think anyone doubted Satanists would be allowed to raise their flag even before when the Christians were denied. I doubt the Christians will do anything to prevent them now despite voicing disapproval

        2. mulch   4 years ago

          Rule of goats applies. Claim you're doing it for the rationality or to own the Christians, but whatever. You're still a Satan worshipper.

          1. The Encogitationer   4 years ago

            The paperwork for The Rule of Goats got eaten by the goats, making them a great Libertarian mascot too 😉

            And Ackshuyally, Anton LaVey's Church of Satan does not lierally believe in either JHVH-1 or Satan. Satan is just an archetype for Independence, Enlightenment, Ambition, and other great traits of the literary figure. The Satanic Tempte is more in line with LaVey.

            The Temple of Set, however, does literally believe in Satan,, so there is a schism.

        3. mad.casual   4 years ago

          They might as well have named their entire religion "We Fuck Kids", it would be about as inflammatory.

          And that's fine enough if they want some tax breaks, I guess, but it's also pretty bizarre. Can't say I understand it myself.

          Nihilists. They don't give a shit about free speech. They just want to fuck with people. If it leaves the people they fucked with less open to the tenets of free speech, they give no shits as long as their dumbass tomfuckery has been achieved.

      3. The Encogitationer   4 years ago

        Yes. It was supposedly Jesus and the religion was Christianity. See Luke 14:26

        If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

    3. Illocust   4 years ago

      I think the better question, is would city hall bothered to stop them if the satanic temple had tried first. A lot of people seem to believe separation of church and state refers only to Christianity.

      1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

        ^this

      2. The Encogitationer   4 years ago

        Ah, but The Satanic Temple merely reacts to Religionists, so the question is moot.

      3. (Redacted)   4 years ago

        There is no constitutional‘separation of church and state’ in the constitution. The state is prohibited from establishing a state religion, like the Church of England. There is no freedom from religion in the constitution.

        1. The Encogitationer   4 years ago

          There's also no such thing as jury nullification in the Constitution, but that is precisely the reason it requires jury trials, as a check upon both the Legislature and the Judiciary.

          Likewise the Separation of Religion and State is precisely the reason the Constitution bans State Establishmen of Religion.

          Moreover, my right to freedom of thought means I don't have to profess or practice any religion, just as the right of a Religionist to believe a particular religion means the right to deny qll others.

          Hence, the right freedom of includes and requires the right to freedom from too.

    4. Michael Ejercito   4 years ago

      Great point!

    5. Fats of Fury   4 years ago

      They wouldn't try this in Salem.

      1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

        They hang witches in Salem! (Maybe Satanists, too, soon.)

        Get on your brooms and fly away NOW, witches! Before it is too late!

      2. markm23   4 years ago

        Are you sure actual satanists weren't in charge of Salem? How could the men running the witch trials have been true followers of Christ?

        1. The Encogitationer   4 years ago

          So you're asking to prove a negative claim about Satanists in the name of asserting a a No True Scotsman Fallacy in Christianity? My you're piling the illogic on thick here.

          By the way, the Jesus in The Sermon On The Mount claimed he came not to get rid of the law but to fulfill the law. Presumably, that includes the command to "Suffer not a witch to live." Hence, witch-burners were true Christians.

  2. Fist of Etiquette   4 years ago

    If you can't get the votes to exercise power through existing institutions, what makes you think you have enough popular support to overthrow the institutions themselves???

    There's always rigging the system.

    1. CE   4 years ago

      One side wants to abolish the First Amendment and the Second Amendment and the Electoral College and now the Senate, but the other side is ready to pounce whenever they have the chance to enslave us, so watch out for them.

      1. JasonAZ   4 years ago

        Don't you know, JD Vance thinks the US is ready for a Caesar!!!

        1. (Redacted)   4 years ago

          I sure am! With chicken and achovies.

  3. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

    What does "science" have to say about Christian v/s Satanic flags? Inquiring minds want to KNOW, dammit!

    Good link here,
    https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/05/03/pinker-vs-the-aaas-on-the-politicization-of-climate-change/ Science lurches to the left! (But the lurching is done SCIENTIFICALLY!)

    1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

      Science is a method, not a belief system. The result of science is data, the moment you interpret that data you are engaging in philosophy. Not science.

      1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

        Statistics and data analysis is "philosophy"? Who knew?!?!?

        1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

          That's not what I said, retard, although interpretation of the analysis is philosophy.

          The fact that you conflated those things indicates your ignorance of them. You're really a little too stupid to be here. Have you tried IFLScience instead?

        2. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

          Mammary-Fuhrer, you ignorant slut! "Philosophy" in ancient Greek days encompassed many sciences, yes, but NOT since! Your word-mangling is like saying "I applied to the University of Hawaii's Alchemy Department, to be a Professor of Alchemy there, but the Alchemy Chair shot me down" (instead of "chemistry" terms). You display your ignorance BIG-TIME here, ignorant slut!

          BTW, the mangling of "science" (ultimate conclusions reached, WAY past the "data analysis" stages, via publishing what is "PC", and ignoring the rest) today is POLITICAL, not "philosophical"!

          1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

            The interpretation is philosophy, not the science. Your brain injury really fucks with your reading comprehension, doesn't it.

            1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

              So if You (Perfect, Inerrant One) lived in the USA instead of in Inner Islamic Canuckistanistanistanistanistan... Would you be voting for Rethugglican Philosophers, Demon-Crap Philosophers, or libertarian Philosophers? Inquiring language-manglers want to KNOW, dammit!

              1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

                Back to foot stomping and calling names.

      2. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

        So... People who place model airplanes in wind tunnels to gather and analyze data to facilitate better aircraft designs... They are engaging in "aerospace philosophy", then?

        Mammary-Necrophiliac, You are a PERFECT example of a word-mangler!

        1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

          No. Are you too retarded to understand the differentiation between the scientific method as used in the practice of aeronautics and a set system of beliefs?

          I explicitly said "Science is a method... The result of science is data".

          Every time I think you can't possibly get any stupider, you prove me wrong.

          1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

            "...the moment you interpret that data you are engaging in philosophy. Not science."

            That's what you said, ignorant slut! I read my thermometer today, analyzed it, and concluded that it is DAMNED hot outside today! Then I collected data-drops and drips on my scalp, and concluded that it is raining! Am I now a "meteorology philosopher"?

            1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

              You'll never be a philosopher, but yes, the process of your interpretation of the data from the thermometer, determining the course of action or constructing a theory and coming to a conclusion would be philosophy. Not science.

              In your example only observing the thermometer and gathering the data is science.

              Merriam-Webster has 13 different definitions for the word "philosophy" . I can see by your argument that you were too ignorant to be aware of more than one or two.

              For crying out loud this is high-school stuff, you stupid fuck.

              1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

                Your philosophy is that of sneering from On High, at the lesser mortals (NONE can be as Perfect as YOU!), and of NEVER admitting that You are WRONG!

                Now go look at polling data about modern language use, and be sure to consult a "data philosopher", and engage the "philosophy engine" in your custom-built computer hardware and AI software!

                So Einstein was a world-renowned "philosopher" then? And so was Darwin? Who knew?!?!?

                1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

                  Yes, they both were. In academia they're inextricable. Science is the method and data, philosophy is the theory and interpretation.

                  Newton called his seminal physics work "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica". John Herschel's called his book on biology "Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy".

                  This isn't me redefining a word, retard. It's pretty much the accepted definition taught from middle school to university. The fact that you're ignorant of it is mindblowing to everyone.

                  1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

                    When everyone is a philosopher, no one is a philosopher. It becomes just a filler-word, and a waste of hot air. Only blow-hards use it in modern times (like airhead blowhards who utilize the word "utilize" instead of "use"). Do modern colleges and universities have departments of chemistry, physics, engineering, medicine, and philosophy, or do they have departments of philosophy chemistry, philosophy physics, philosophy engineering, philosophy medicine, and philosophy philosophy?

                  2. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

                    "Data analysis" is everywhere, AUTOMATED, in "process control"! As a simple example (been around for decades), a thermostatic control takes the data ("what does my human want, and what is the temperature now"), analyzes it, and turns the heat or the AC on or off.

                    Shall we be plain-spoken modern humans, and call it a thermostat, or shall we be over-inflated windbags and blowhards, and call it a thermostatic philosopher?

                    1. R Mac   4 years ago

                      You really are dumber than I thought.

                    2. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

                      Here comes R Mac with its ASTOUNDINGLY PROFOUND analysis, and a refutation of anyone and everyone who has EVER disagreed with R Mac, MOST philosophical of ALL philosophers!

                  3. (Redacted)   4 years ago

                    Has he started in with his Tim the Enchanter bullshit yet?

      3. The Encogitationer   4 years ago

        So Scientism isn't a thing? Glad to hear you say that. 🙂

  4. Fist of Etiquette   4 years ago

    The Federal Reserve will raise interest rates by 0.5 percent...

    Phew. That means they can keep printing money.

    1. Rich   4 years ago

      That's obviously the main tool in their set of tools they keep alluding to.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   4 years ago

        What about official US government NFTs?

        1. Rich   4 years ago

          *One-trillion-dollar* NFTs?

          1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   4 years ago

            One-trillion-dollar platinum coin NFTs.

        2. Moonrocks   4 years ago

          You mean dollars?

        3. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

          I know! US government (AKA Government Almighty) should raise money by selling Biden-turds-NFTs and Trump-turd-NFTs!

          (Kinda like "voting" at the bar with jars of jelly-beans, and shit, ya know; informal popularity polling.)

  5. Fist of Etiquette   4 years ago

    The White House realizes its hands are tired if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.

    Tired and arthritic.

    1. The Encogitationer   4 years ago

      And full with servings of Jello Pudding and Boost.

    2. Fist of Etiquette   4 years ago

      ENB corrected the typo, and now I look like a FOOL!

      1. R Mac   4 years ago

        “Now”?

    3. (Redacted)   4 years ago

      Probably with an uncontrollable resting tremor too.

  6. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian   4 years ago

    "If you really want deep and systemic change, take a Twitter break and rediscover the lost art of grassroots organizing and mass persuasion."

    But grassroots organizing is difficult. As a Koch / Reason libertarian I think social change should be the result of billionaires essentially buying the outcomes they want.

    #BillionairesKnowBest

    1. Don't look at me!   4 years ago

      It’s so much easier that way.

    2. JesseAz   4 years ago

      Except Musk.

      1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

        Pew-pew rocketman is practically Hitler.

    3. ThomasD   4 years ago

      Not simply billionaires.

      It can only be the proper sort of billionaires.

    4. squid_hunt   4 years ago

      Isn't the entire political structure of the LP based around abandoning grassroots organizing and eschewing mass persuasion?

  7. Fist of Etiquette   4 years ago

    Does returning decisions about abortion to the states increase liberty or shrink it?

    Look what it's done for gun rights.

    1. Rich   4 years ago

      Very nice.

    2. CE   4 years ago

      Scientific American sees long term health and financial impacts from overturning it. But I think they're only considering half the people affected.

      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/overturning-roe-v-wade-could-have-devastating-health-and-financial-impacts-landmark-study-showed/

      The study found that women denied the procedure were more likely to experience negative health impacts—including worse mental health—than women who received one. The former were also more likely to face worse financial outcomes, including poor credit, debt and bankruptcy. (The study did not include pregnant people who did not identify as women.)

      1. Nardz   4 years ago

        The parenthetical pretty much annihilates any credibility the publication/source may have had.
        Their findings are rendered meaningless, as they're possibly imaginary.

      2. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

        "But I think they're only considering half the people affected."

        Half of everyone participating in an abortion winds up dead.

      3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   4 years ago

        If unwanted fetuses are like illegal immigrants, then I want to see Scientific American reconcile the impacts of those two groups.

      4. Yatusabes   4 years ago

        Scientific American is neither:

        (The study did not include pregnant people who did not identify as women.)

        LOL [eyes roll]

        They also pontificated that COVID lockdowns would save lives and have little effect on the US economy.

        Theyre such a cluster f***, these “scientists”

  8. Fist of Etiquette   4 years ago

    Reason's Stephanie Slade offers "a qualified defense of letting states decide on abortion."

    CATHOLIC ALERT.

  9. Don't look at me!   4 years ago

    Mutations in two new omicron variants are allowing them to reinfect people who've already been infected with the omicron edition of COVID-19.

    Those vaccines are super effective.

    1. Rich   4 years ago

      'Hey! It's that crappy "natural immunity"!'

    2. JesseAz   4 years ago

      But we were promised the end to the common cold!

    3. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

      Yes, but you'll use your job without them.

      1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

        *lose

        1. HorseConch   4 years ago

          The sure have been effective at making Moderna and Pfizer money, shit tons of money.

  10. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian   4 years ago

    Since Reason's leading economics expert hasn't been around much lately, I'll try to provide the type of analysis he's known for.

    [clears throat]

    HEY PEANUTS CAN YOU BELIEVE HOW AMAZING THIS BIDEN ECONOMY IS???!!!! WARREN BUFFETT MADE $3 BILLION YESTERDAY AND RIG COUNT IS UP!!!!!!

    #DefendBidenAtAllCosts

    1. Don't look at me!   4 years ago

      I am worried about the spittin tobaccy index.

      1. EISTAU Gree-Vance   4 years ago

        The Tobaccy Inflation Tracking Service was the only thing pointed upward today.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   4 years ago

      OBL, we respectfully ask that you stop using the word "Peanut". Far too many vulnerable* people suffer from life-threatening peanut allergy violence, or from fear of peanut allergy violence, or from crushing empathy for others who might suffer from peanut allergy violence. Just hearing the word is enough to cause extreme distress.

      *Peanut-oppressed people include coddled upper-middle class white SJWs, and by presumptive oppression-projection, all other marginalized people.

  11. Rich   4 years ago

    The group—which is not so much a bunch of devil worshippers as a group dedicated to protecting free speech, freedom of religion, and separation of church and state—applied to raise and lower its flag this July in celebration of "Satanic Appreciation Week."

    "Religious Liberty is a bedrock principle in a democracy, and Religious Liberty is dependent upon government viewpoint neutrality," Satanic Temple co-founder Lucien Greaves said

    Emphasis added. Until "strongly-held philosophical beliefs", "shamans", etc. are, um, viewed in the same light as "recognized religions" this crap will never end.

    1. Rich   4 years ago

      The second sentence should be italicized.

      *** gets coffee ***

    2. Mickey Rat   4 years ago

      Religious liberty requires that religious affliated organizations be discriminated against is insane troll logic.

      1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

        They always seem to conveiniantly forget the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." part.

    3. CE   4 years ago

      Too bad there's no Disney theme park in Boston so they can join in the fight.

      1. Yatusabes   4 years ago

        Dahyum!

        + 1 x 10^9

  12. Fist of Etiquette   4 years ago

    Megan McArdle suggests we don't have to worry about birth control bans or states forbidding interracial marriage.

    UNLESS it's deemed those rights conflict with the 'rona.

    1. Rich   4 years ago

      "Our bodies, our choice."

      1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

        Your bodies, our choice.

  13. Earth-based Human Skeptic   4 years ago

    I want a government that is officially and practically ignorant of religion.

    Since religion is nothing more than a bunch of beliefs, we should strive for a society--and government--that does not recognize beliefs with any official standing, even if only to "give all beliefs an equal voice" or especially "treat all beliefs equally by banning expression of beliefs in official contexts".

    1. Rich   4 years ago

      banning expression of beliefs in official contexts

      SCOTUS hardest hit.

    2. Don't look at me!   4 years ago

      It’s ok to recognize they exist, just don’t promote any.

      1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

        or prohibit their free exercise.

    3. Mickey Rat   4 years ago

      Which says Boston should never have implemented the flag raising program in the first place. The line between religion and philosophy is not a sharp, bright one. If it is impermissible to fly a Christian Camp flag, then it should be not permitted to fly a Pride flag either.

      1. Briggs Cunningham   4 years ago

        That is exactly right. You either have to do it for everyone or do it for no one. What is the purpose of flying any flag in front of city hall? All doing it does is open the city up to charges of discrimination or if they fly everything trolling like this. It is stupid and pointless. Fly the city, state, and US flag and nothing else.

        1. Overt   4 years ago

          This is why the Satanists are such assholes. So long as the state was raising flags about gay pride, or scouts, or BLM, or whatever viewpoint they never said dick. They could have easily gone and said "Let's raise the satanic flag" and gone through the courts, and ended up with the entire program being shut down.

          The only reason they gave a fuck was because some christians did all this work first. They don't object to viewpoint discrimination, they object to christians being allowed in the program.

          I agree that in general, this is a pretty stupid program that doesn't mean a lot. On the other hand, I also know that there are a lot of other performative things that City Hall does to try and foster community. If this had been my city hall, I'd have ordered the Satanic flag hoisted.

          1. Zeb   4 years ago

            That's the thing about satanism. It's pretty much a specific Christian heresy. Their whole existence is to be a reactionary counter to Christianity.

            1. Hank Ferrous   4 years ago

              Cunty atheist progressives who apparently think their stupid 'edgy' anti-Christian attitude is cool. Will guess significant overlap w/ antifa , black lives matter, feminism and other grievance culture whiny fucks.

          2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

            My satanic flag has a comic picture of Muhammed on it.

      2. Zeb   4 years ago

        I'd advise any government to take that route. Why should city hall be displaying flags for anyone's pet cause or belief system?

      3. ZiemSky   4 years ago

        Just because a religion disagrees with the way others live their life, does not automatically make that way of living a philosophy.

        You could say that most religions practice natalism; you are not worth your earthly life unless you procreate. Therefore, homosexual humans are...unworthy? Or something. Worth murdering? Worth incarcerating? Worth denying liberties other citizens enjoy? Idk, religious are little weird on that, apparently "love thy neighbor," "let Jesus judge," or whatever, don't apply in this area.

        But anywho. I suppose you could say that homosexual people believe that rather than procreation being the ultimate goal in life, contentment is a bigger priority. Or perhaps community service. Or maybe fostering kids that would otherwise age out of the system without any devout Christian bothering to take them in. Y'know. That nefarious homosexual "agenda," or philosophy, as we're calling it here-- heaven forbid they have sex because they love each other, and not because they're trying to create another human.

        Maybe the reason the Satanists target Christian activities is because for all the Christian whining that they are soooo discriminated against, Christianity actually enjoys an outsized monopoly on our society and government, even if not officially. You know who notices it? Non-Christians. Not all are bothered by it, but that doesn't dictate what's constitutional or not. Try putting "In Allah we trust" on all of our currency, and watch the Christian heads explode. Christians and their sympathizers never bother to put themselves in others' shoes; they patiently explain to the rest of us how we're overreacting to having only their religion represented in matters of religious "freedom". If homosexuality is either a religion or a philosophy on par with religion, then atheism certainly qualifies as well, and therefore any mention of a deity is clear bias against atheism and therefore unconstitutional.

        1. Mickey Rat   4 years ago

          In other words the "Satanist" LARPers have an animus against Christians and are peeved that the City was no longer allowed to discriminate against a Christian affiliated organization.

          1. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   4 years ago

            LARPers...lol

            It's so true...

        2. Nardz   4 years ago

          You're a religious fanatic, and a bigot.

        3. (Redacted)   4 years ago

          Homosexuality isn’t a belief system. It’s a sexual orientation. What a bunch of nonsense. And there wouldn’t be references to Allah because the US wasn’t founded by Muslims and only has a small Muslim minority. Although we’re far more accepting of Muslims than every Muslim majority country on the planet is of Christians.

    4. CE   4 years ago

      Self-evident truths excluded?

  14. JimboJr   4 years ago

    I see the new histrionics of the day have changed from "genocide" to "slavery".

    Everything is slavery now. Letting states decide their own abortion laws, or even worse, not being able to have an easy breezy care-free drive through no questions asked abortion anytime in a preg is LITERAL slavery. Plus they wont be able to brag on TikTok about gleefully dancing their way to the abobo clinic. Straight slavery I tells ya.

    Ironic that "genocide" was just the left wing tear fest buzzword just a few weeks ago, but planned parenthoods in heavy minority populated D cities is responsible for more black "genocide" than slavery, diabetes, and fried chicken combined. Black women make up 14-15% of the female population but get 40-50% of the abortions in some of these places. Talk about genocide. A KKK grand wizard couldn't conjure up a better way to implement eugenics.

    1. A Thinking Mind   4 years ago

      They'd use genocide for this, too, if they could get away with it. Their opponents got there first on this issue.

    2. Brandybuck   4 years ago

      The Left called pro-life "slavery", but the Right calls pro-choice "genocide". So the histrionics balances out into a cacophony of white noise. Like two seagulls screeching at each other over a dead fish.

      1. JesseAz   4 years ago

        They call it infanticide. Because they understand English.

        1. ZiemSky   4 years ago

          "Infant" is a scientific term referring to offspring that has been birthed. Before that, it is a fetus. Since "baby" is merely a term of endearment, a person could choose to apply it to any stage of gestation or development. So it would not make sense to call abortion "infanticide" since no infants are ever killed during an abortion.

          "Genocide" only works if you consider the fetus a person. Which, up until ~26-29 weeks' gestation, they have the brainwaves of a "vegetable"/brain-dead born person. A state that we have agreed as a society (and based on evidence) means there is no "person" inside the living human husk, and is therefore legally and morally permissible to "pull the plug"/kill. Yes, a zygote/embryo/fetus has the "potential" to become a person, but only with the (unwilling, in this case) trespass of another's body and theft of their blood, tissue, and nutrients (which no person has a right to, no matter their supposed innocence or compelling reason), which isn't a valid reason for banning abortion-- *especially* considering fetuses do not suffer before this threshold, while pregnant people inarguably do suffer.

          The link to "slavery" is that the logical conclusion of banning abortion is to imprison pregnant people (who have expressed a desire to end their pregnancy) and force their bodies to house, nourish, and gestate a fetus when that person could and would otherwise have an abortion. Even if not directly imprisoned, their bodies are still forced to do this by government "authority," so what difference.

          1. JesseAz   4 years ago

            Genocide is the destruction of a people based on race, ethnicity, or some other common metric. Abortions are fairly indiscriminate. Infanticide makes far more sense than genocide.

            1. ZiemSky   4 years ago

              JesseAz "or some other common metric" ; age? Stage of development? Cognitive ability? Disability? Or I imagine the term "feticide" could be expanded to include mass scale.

              Hank Ferrous, Alright. Say a state bans abortion after 6 weeks (has already happened). Say that state is highly antagonistic towards any abortions, including excluding exceptions for rape, incest, life of mother, and health of mother (has already happened). Say that state decrees that fetuses have full personhood, and therefore abortion is murder, and therefore, just like with any other murder, the state is tasked with preventing it happening, by force if necessary.

              If police can break into your house and arrest you because you have a knife and have expressed intent to stab your ex-girlfriend, then is it really, truly, tinfoil-hat-farfetched to imagine they would also break into your house and arrest you because they found out you had ordered pills to murder your fetus?

              I also wonder, once a fetus' personhood is established by law, what the implications will be for pregnant people who smoke or drink, or ride a rollarcoaster, or drive without a seatbelt. If we are treating a fetus like a born child, then all of the child endangerment, neglect, and abuse laws must also apply.

              The majority of women who get abortions are already parents; their reason for abortion is that they cannot provide for yet another child. So when she tries to or succeeds in aborting (in her effort to protect the welfare of her family), and is then jailed, what happens to the born, breathing, suffering-capable children are now motherless?

              ("She could just adopt" is not a valid argument, since the overwhelming majority of women who are unable to obtain an abortion, choose to keep it instead of give it up; pro-lifers seem to overlook the biological maternal instinct at birth, which overrides all sound logic).

              The truth is, rather than pro-choicers being crazy tinfoil-hat wearers, pro-lifers are simply allowing themselves to be too short-sighted to think the entire logical process through. Unintended side effects are a real-life thing, believe it or not. But at least you think it's a ridiculous fear rather than embracing all the potential ramifications on women and children...

              1. Personcommenting   4 years ago

                We have several laws to protect people from themselves so we can just see it as protecting a woman from herself until that overwhelming maternal instinct kicks in. If it doesn't then she can give the child up for adoption.

              2. (Redacted)   4 years ago

                Unborn BABIES are still infants. You really have a lot of stupid, ignorant ideas. Just another leftist, Antichrist infanticide armchair Marxist moron.

                I’m sure you will feel it incumbent upon yourself to impart more ignorance at us.

          2. Hank Ferrous   4 years ago

            'The link to "slavery" is that the logical conclusion of banning abortion is to imprison pregnant people (who have expressed a desire to end their pregnancy) and force their bodies to house, nourish, and gestate a fetus when that person could and would otherwise have an abortion. Even if not directly imprisoned, their bodies are still forced to do this by government "authority," so what difference.' Right. Maybe a tinfoil hat, or a nice prescription for lithium to help with the delusions. The ignorance and stupidity, no solution.

            1. Political McGuffin   4 years ago

              Now do men who are enslaved for years to financally support a child they didn't want....

              Equal rights means men being able to terminate their responsibility for their offspring prior to birth.

      2. Longtobefree   4 years ago

        You can't say "white noise"; it's racist.

        1. HorseConch   4 years ago

          Not when the w is lower case. Now if she were to say black hole without capitalizing the b, that would be racist.

      3. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

        "genocide"

        Well the largest demographic of abortions by far is Black at around 40%, but Black Americans are only around 12% of the population (The second largest is Hispanics).
        Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider, was started by a racist eugenicist who thought blacks were inferior, and for it's first forty years Planned Parenthood preached eugenics.
        Democratic Party pols, representatives of the party of slavery, Jim Crow, the Black Codes, the KKK and segregation, arranged for most of the abortion clinics to be placed in historically Black neighborhoods.

        Awful lot of coincidences there, Brandy. But I'm sure that it's nothing.

        1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   4 years ago

          Planned parenthood was literally started to convince as many blacks as possible to have abortions

          1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   4 years ago

            Well, that and sterilizing social defectives and undesirables.

        2. R Mac   4 years ago

          Don’t forget welfare policies that discourage fathers from living in the home, and all the wonderful effects that’s had on black people.

          Which party pushes those policies again?

      4. The Encogitationer   4 years ago

        Or sea lions? 😉

    3. ThomasD   4 years ago

      "A KKK grand wizard couldn't conjure up a better way to implement eugenics."

      Margaret Sanger has them thinking about letting women join.

    4. Earth-based Human Skeptic   4 years ago

      Yes. The fundamental progressive rhetoric is that any effort to prevent them from institutionalizing their visions of utopia is fascism, and probably slavery.

      Thus "Freedom is Slavery".

  15. Fist of Etiquette   4 years ago

    The Libertarian Party asked members about abortion.

    ARE WE DONE WITH UKRAINE ALREADY?

    1. Don't look at me!   4 years ago

      Yes, we should ask them about abortion too.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   4 years ago

        And their carbon footprint.

    2. Moonrocks   4 years ago

      Please. That was the current thing like four things ago.

    3. The Encogitationer   4 years ago

      Here's two people I'd never turn to for "Moral Absolutes" on either subject:

      Pope Francis Suggests 'The Barking of NATO at Russia's Door' May Have Forced Putin to Invade Ukraine
      https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pope-francis-suggests-the-barking-of-nato-at-russias-door-may-have-forced-putin-to-invade-ukraine/ar-AAWVKns

      Preacher Franklin Graham Condemned for Telling Fox News Viewers to Pray for Putin: ‘You Pervert the Word of God’
      Umberto Gonzalez
      April 16, 2022·3 min read
      https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/preacher-franklin-graham-condemned-telling-201805778.html

      1. Zeb   4 years ago

        I really don't see what problem you could possibly have with the second one.

        1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

          Encog gets a little weird around religion.

          Also, Francis isn't wrong in the first example either. NATO incursion into former Soviet states wasn't the only factor, but it was a factor.

          1. Zeb   4 years ago

            He may be right. But I can at least imagine somewhat reasonable objections.

          2. Nardz   4 years ago

            Encog has nothing in his ideal except attempted Edge lord hatred of religion.
            He blind, devout faith.

          3. The Encogitationer   4 years ago

            "Weird?" Francis and Graham say "bowf sides" on The Russo-Ukrainian War when Putin is the clear aggressor and yet claim their religion has "Absolute Morality," and yet I'm "weird?"

            Now that is really weird.

            And what former Soviet Bloc nations do is in response to Putin's Greater Eurasia ideology created and espoused by Alexandr Dugin. Without Duginism on the march with Putin as the bandleader, none of this would be happening.

        2. Cronut   4 years ago

          The only correct response to the word "Putin" is to wish death on him. Anything else makes you a Putin apologist.

      2. Fist of Etiquette   4 years ago

        I remember when we had a commie-hunter pope.

        1. Cronut   4 years ago

          Now he's just a commie.

          1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

            The pope has always been commie-ish, that is if you ready the encyclicals. (hint: I don't recommend it)

      3. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   4 years ago

        The end is nigh nome chomsky praised trump for being the only statesman that is talking about and wants peace

      4. JasonAZ   4 years ago

        Our Lord Jesus speaking in Matthew 5:

        43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

        1. The Encogitationer   4 years ago

          The gain of loving those who love you is more love, hopefully including "benefits." too.

          The gain of "loving your enemies and bless8ng those who persecute you" is for the enemy and persecutor alone when they roll all over you.

  16. Nardz   4 years ago

    Totalitarian instruction.

    https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1522061626186158080?t=9XZw1rSwgzNv5kqM30G__Q&s=19

    This was a question given to students in a Missouri high school in @WSDinfo.

    [Link]

    1. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian   4 years ago

      chemjeff says the real problem with American education is parents who don't want their children exposed to such a curriculum.

      #RadicalIndividualistsForRacialCollectivism

    2. Rich   4 years ago

      "The writer of that test is MOST likely a ...."

      1. Moonrocks   4 years ago

        Racist?

      2. R Mac   4 years ago

        Idiot?

      3. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

        Racist idiot?

        1. ThomasD   4 years ago

          Is there any other type?

          Of racist, that is.

    3. JesseAz   4 years ago

      Jeff says this type of indoctrination doesn't exist. Why do you hate the teaching of slavery?

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

        It's not indoctrination if it's empirically correct.

        1. JesseAz   4 years ago

          And Jeff shows his biases lol.

          Stating a true fact makes someone republican now? Are you even aware of the actual statistics?

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

            It is empirically correct that between Democrats and Republicans, Republicans believe police violence is most likely due to causes other than racism. That is what the question was asking about. You are just mad that the CORRECT ANSWER makes your team look bad.

            1. JesseAz   4 years ago

              How does it make one look bad for understanding more than a political narrative.

              Do you think the teacher in this case is going to show the students the UW study on race based shootings showing white people are actually more likely to be shot when presenting this question?

              You like the question because the narrative is the GOP is racist. And you want the teacher to push this narrative despite facts.

              That is what you want. You don't want objective or critical assessments around the issue.

              You are for indoctrination as I've stated for weeks.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

                How does it make one look bad for understanding more than a political narrative.

                If you don't think that question makes your team look bad, then what are you complaining about?

                Do you think the teacher in this case is going to show the students the UW study on race based shootings showing white people are actually more likely to be shot when presenting this question?

                I don't know. I would hope so. I would expect that the teacher would present empirically correct and rigorously researched evidence to support as many relevant viewpoints on the subject as feasible.

                But the real question is, do YOU want the teacher to be presenting evidence such as the UW study? Because if you do, you are acknowledging that the topic of police violence and racism is a legitimate topic for discussion at school. So how precisely should the teacher lead this discussion? Let's hear your thoughts on the matter.

                Or, maybe you don't want the teacher to be talking about racism or police violence or anything like that at school. If so then that means you would rather have kids learn about topics like racism from social media and cultural narratives. Who do you want kids learning about topics like race and police violence? From an academic institution? Or from some BLM activist on Twitter? Hmm?

                1. sarcasmic   4 years ago

                  What is to be gained by teaching those things? Schools have a difficult time enough with the three R's. Before long kids will be reciting Michael Brown but unable to read.

                2. JesseAz   4 years ago

                  What is the purpose of the question at all jeff? You seem obsessed with showing one political group to be bad or good. The question has nothing to do with facts but is a subjective interpretation if a political narrative. It doesn't belong in school.

                  I don't know. I would hope so

                  Bullshit. Every response you have had in this sub thread is a discussion on politics, not facts. You want to push a subjective term onto a side. That's it.

                  I would expect that the teacher would present empirically correct and rigorously researched evidence to support as many relevant viewpoints on the subject as feasible.

                  Bullshit. This isn't taught in depth at grade school levels since the subject is complex, why it should be in university levels where courses can be centered around it.

                  There is no reason for any public k-12 to have a largely biased teaching population make inferences targeting either political party.

                  Again, you want indoctrination.

                  This question serves no valid purpose in either critical thinking nor mathematical fundamentals. It is purely subjective bias.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

                    Whatever man. I am telling you what I believe, but you choose to ignore it and substitute your own 'reality'. That is why you are just a junkyard dog. A junkyard dog only knows one way to react to intruders: snarl and attack. That's what you are doing.

                    1. JesseAz   4 years ago

                      And I am telling you what your beliefs come across as and your defensiveness in the validity of this question shows your belief is political, not instructional. You have in the vast majority of your defenses on this questioned addressed solely the political outcome of the question, not the educational validity of it.

                      And now you're back to name calling.

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

                      You have in the vast majority of your defenses on this questioned addressed solely the political outcome of the question, not the educational validity of it.

                      That is just not true. I haven't said anything at all about which team is right or wrong on this issue.

                      The question is relevant because it is (a) true and (b) a current topic in current events. Kids need to know these things. ALL the things about these topics. Once again: if the question had been: "Bob believes all cops are racist, even the black ones. That means Bob is most likely a: Democrat", that would be an EQUALLY VALID question. Do you get it now?

            2. sarcasmic   4 years ago

              In this case Republicans are correct. Excessive police violence has a variety of causes chief among which are unions, QI, and a resulting total lack of accountability.

              I say shame on Democrats and other turds who hijacked what could have been meaningful reform and turned it into a race issue, which resulted in nothing positive.

          2. Fats of Fury   4 years ago

            Jeff is a democrat-leaning black woman. Fat too.

            1. JesseAz   4 years ago

              Obese.

            2. ThomasD   4 years ago

              Who is so dense as to be incapable of conceiving of a situation where an "unarmed man" might be otherwise doing something that could warrant the use of lethal force. e.g. strangling an infant.

              Small minds tending towards being rigid minds.

              1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   4 years ago

                What about rogue SUVs?

        2. But SkyNet is a Private Company   4 years ago

          What does it say if you “hear about a shooting” and automatically assume it is racial?

    4. Overt   4 years ago

      Let's remember that this is the official position of the NEA- to create a curriculum "that critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society."

      https://reason.com/2021/07/06/critical-race-theory-nea-taught-in-schools/?comments=true#comments

      No matter how much Chemjeff or others say that this is just some invented talking point of the right, it is clear as day that the largest teachers' organization in the nation has not only endorsed CRT by name, but also demanded that curriculums subvert capitalism and insinuate intersectional theory into the teaching of K-12 kids.

      This isn't a conspiracy theory. It is right there in their bodies of work.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

        First, intersectionality is not CRT.
        Second, why do you object to this? Because you think it is false? Or because you don't like it?

        Why SHOULDN'T a proper curriculum teach about capitalism, AS WELL AS teach about critiques of capitalism?

        Why SHOULDN'T a proper curriculum teach about intersectionality, AS WELL AS other theories concerning race and power and gender?

        1. JesseAz   4 years ago

          Intersectionality is CRT praxis. You can continue to deny it, but you're just defending critical theory. Oddly you keep claiming you don't support critical theory yet can't stop defending it.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

            There we go. You want to focus on the first minor part while ignoring the second major part.

            1. JesseAz   4 years ago

              I am focusing on your last 3 years of posting history dummy.

          2. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

            Do you think a proper curriculum should only teach the virtues of capitalism but not the critiques of capitalism?

            1. JesseAz   4 years ago

              What an idiotic question. Capitalism is not taught as some perfect system in any school. Schools discuss merits.

              You seemingly want to teach them that capitalism leads to slavery, which is CRT praxis, not facts about capitalism. it is a narrative about it.

              Again, you want to teach narratives, not facts and not critical thinking.

              Just stop already.

            2. sarcasmic   4 years ago

              The problem I see with "critiques of capitalism" is that they rely on twisting the word "justice" to mean the total opposite. Justice is an absence of injustice. It's what happens when nobody if violating your rights. "Social justice" and "racial justice" are proactive. They actively seek to right the so-called wrongs of capitalism through theft and coercion. They are themselves injustice.
              Because of that I see no good reason to teach it in schools. That's teaching kids that the government can turn two wrongs into a right.

              1. JesseAz   4 years ago

                I will say that these are good posts. I will give credit where it is due.

                1. sarcasmic   4 years ago

                  Maybe if instead of ignoring posts like these while taking seriously posts that are obviously not meant to be taken as such, you'd wake up to the fact that I'm not the leftist caricature dancing around inside your head.

                  1. JesseAz   4 years ago

                    I don't ignore them. Take the win. I agree with you here. Try more of them.

              2. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

                Nevertheless, students should be exposed to these critiques of capitalism even if we don't agree with them. Just like with the questions of racism and policing, where would you like students to learn about these controversial topics - from professionals in an academic rigorous setting, or from activists on Twitter?

                1. R Mac   4 years ago

                  Start a after school club where you and teach all the lefty nonsense you want.

            3. I, Woodchipper   4 years ago

              I think public schools should be eliminated and parents can direct their children to the schools the provide the type of education they prefer.

        2. Overt   4 years ago

          "First, intersectionality is not CRT."

          Go read the article I linked to- they are specifically defending putting CRT in the classroom by name.

          "Why SHOULDN'T a proper curriculum teach about capitalism, AS WELL AS teach about critiques of capitalism?"

          They are teaching that capitalism is bad, Chemjeff. They aren't teaching that "there are critiques of it", they are critiquing one of the greatest causes of human prosperity in history.

          "Why SHOULDN'T a proper curriculum teach about intersectionality, AS WELL AS other theories concerning race and power and gender?"

          But that isn't what they are saying they are going to do, Chemjeff. They are teaching intersectionality as TRUTH. They are not saying "here is an interesting theory", they are demanding that this *is* the curriculum. Or is Soave lying in that article?

          Please. Prove me wrong. Go to the article. Go to the source materials. Find me *any* evidence that the NEA is calling for a "balanced" education where these concepts are presented as one of many potential theories including, say, "traditional nuclear family values". You know you aren't going to find such a thing, because you know the game the NEA is up to.

          I'm putting you on notice, Chemjeff. This is the 3rd or 4th time you have shown up to say "Why shouldn't people be exposed to lots of different ideas" and it is the 3rd or 4th time I have told you that 1) this isn't what is happening, they are presenting this leftist dogma as truth and 2) I agree with that generality, but at the end of the day, even if you agree on a wide curriculum, you will STILL need to pick and choose which information will be taught, since you can't teach EVERYTHING.

          So I can only assume that if you continue to disagree with me, it is because you want CRT (and intersectionality, and anti-racism, and white privilege, and anti-capitalism) to be taught as *truth* in the classroom; You want kids to be taught that there is no difference between trans girls and biological girls; You want teachers to be telling kids that gender is a social construct. Because this is what is happening- not your fantasy nonsense about "exposing" kids to controversial subjects.

          We can both agree that kids should have a general education, and still disagree on what that education will include. So either defend the SPECIFIC curriculums, or get out of the way while the Parents decide what their children will consume.

          1. R Mac   4 years ago

            “I'm putting you on notice, Chemjeff. This is the 3rd or 4th time you have shown up to say "Why shouldn't people be exposed to lots of different ideas" and it is the 3rd or 4th time I have told you that 1) this isn't what is happening, they are presenting this leftist dogma as truth”

            It’s cute you think you won’t have to do it a 5th, 6th, 7th, infinity times to get him to honestly acknowledge your point. I can appreciate your effort, but know it’s futile.

          2. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

            I am not advocating for any *specific* curriculum. Only the broad outlines of what I think a proper education should be. If a specific curriculum doesn't follow those broad outlines then I'm not likely to be supportive of it. So if you are telling me that the status quo does not follow this broad outline of a proper education, then fine I don't support the status quo.

            I agree that not everything can be taught. So if a topic is selected, then that topic should be studied with appropriate depth, respectfully, and not discriminate with respect to a particular viewpoint WITHIN that topic. If that can't be done satisfactorily within the time constraints of the school year, then don't pick the topic in the first place. So if a topic like race and policing is a legitimate topic for class, then talk about all sides of that topic. That necessarily means having a discussion within the confines of that topic that will make both leftwingers and rightwingers angry at some point. And that is totally fine, let them be angry. But don't let their anger shut down the educational process.

            1. Overt   4 years ago

              "I am not advocating for any *specific* curriculum. Only the broad outlines of what I think a proper education should be. "

              I know you aren't. It is a cute version of motte and bailey. We are arguing about whether the NEA should be advancing actual crypto-marxism as truth, and you are spouting feel good nonsense about "broad outlines". That is why I put you on notice: I told you what I am arguing against, and it isn't "broad outlines", but specific instruction. So if you come into another one of these conversations talking about "Broad outlines" instead of addressing the actual example being discussed, I'm going to assume you are trying to defend that example, or being a troll shouting from inside his motte.

              And by the way, this is why I continue to implore you to let parents figure this shit out. You have not paid enough attention to what kids are being sold in schools. That's ok because you aren't a parent. But it also means that when you get all self righteous about your "broad outlines", it costs you very little if you are derailing a legitimate complaint. If you derail and vilify people who are ACTUALLY protesting marxist indoctrination of their kids, it costs you nothing if you are wrong. Meanwhile, if you create enough cognitive dissonance to derail our efforts, it costs us VERY MUCH.

              You do not know what is going on in these schools. I do. I have had my hispanic daughter come home to tell me that her teacher says she still has white privilege because she is "only Passing White" hispanic. I have watched tiktok after insta after tweet where teachers are GLOATING about teaching this shit. I have read these working statements by the NEA. I have seen them discuss this stuff where they think they are safe to let down their defenses. If you are not going to take these peoples' word for it, then just stay out of it and leave this to the parents.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

                But I think you are pulling a bit of a fast one there. The NEA's statement says: "It is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory," (emphasis added)

                They're NOT saying that critical race theory is the ONLY theory that matters and students should be taught that as THE only singular truth. They're saying that a curriculum should be informed by relevant academic frameworks INCLUDING critical race theory. Which is what I've been saying all along. It is one of many frameworks for analyzing and interpreting the modern world and I see nothing wrong with exposing kids in an age-appropriate and professional manner to it as ONE idea among many, along with a bunch of other ideas as well.

                IF a school said: CRT is the only framework that matters and we will teach our kids only this, then I would oppose this action.
                IF a school says: CRT is patently false and we will refuse to teach it at all, even as one idea among many, then I would oppose this action as well.

                So that is where I stand. I can't make it much clearer. I don't defend the specifics of CRT. I have said in the past that I think some of its ideas are particularly wacky and absurd. I do defend the concept of academic freedom in the classroom and letting teachers be the professionals that they are to teach relevant content in their fields of expertise.

                And by the way. If you really do agree with me that kids should receive a general education, then I would appreciate if you could offer some pushback against your right-wing colleagues here that a general education for kids is important. Quite a few times commenters here object not just to CRT, but to any topic in the classroom that is 'controversial' or 'subjective' and want schools to teach 'just the basics'. I would hope that you and I would both disagree with that, teaching kids 'just the basics' does not teach them to be critical thinkers, it instead turns them into little drones that can only spout the 'correct' facts. That is doing kids a disservice.

        3. But SkyNet is a Private Company   4 years ago

          And accepting Jesus sacrifice for your sins is not Christianity

    5. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

      But chemjeff swore it's just about learning history and stuff.

    6. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

      You don't like it, but that question is empirically true.

      https://morningconsult.com/2021/04/19/black-lives-matter-protest-police-polling/

      If you scroll down, you'll see from this poll that when asked if police violence is due to racism, 66% of Democrats agree but only 23% of Republicans agree. So yeah, if Teresa has the opinion that the police shooting of unarmed black men "does not think it is necessarily due to racism", then Teresa is *most likely* a Republican. (given the only two political party choices presented are Democrat and Republican).

      Of course the whole point of this tweet is to gin up outrage at this school for posing a question, the answer to which makes Republicans look bad even though it has empirical support. The implication of course is that this school is run by left-wing whackos who want to indoctrinate kids into thinking that Republicans are evil. But we also don't know what the other questions were in this assignment. Perhaps the next question was something like: "Bob thinks all police officers are racist, even the black ones. Bob is most likely a: Democrat." Would THAT be an unfair question for this quiz? No one around here would object to THAT question, because it makes Democrats look bad. So yes, tweets like this taken out of context are cherry-picking and demagoguery.

      1. Zeb   4 years ago

        The problem is that the intent is to make Republicans look bad (I can't say for sure, but what the fuck else could it be?). Yeah, the next question could be what you suggest, but I'll bet you a million dollars it isn't.
        The funny part is that if you are at all connected with reality, it really makes Republicans look sane and rational.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

          The problem is that the intent is to make Republicans look bad

          No, the clear pedagogical intent here is to teach kids broadly about the differences between Democrats and Republicans. And sorry not sorry that some of the differences make each team look bad. If this was the ONLY question of its type in the assignment then you might have a point, but from the article, this question was randomly chosen from an AP test bank that prepares kids for the AP test.

          The funny part is that if you are at all connected with reality, it really makes Republicans look sane and rational.

          Oh, so it *doesn't* make Republicans look bad then? Huh.

          1. JesseAz   4 years ago

            And here Jeff says he believes the idea of teaching is indoctrination with this statement:

            he clear pedagogical intent here is to teach kids broadly about the differences between Democrats and Republicans.

            Schools should not be teaching kids to broad based political subjective descriptions.

            You keep showing yourself to be everything you claim you are not.

            You're a leftist who is pro indoctrination.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

              Schools should not be teaching kids to broad based political subjective descriptions.

              No, schools should not be teaching kids mere stereotypes about Democrats or Republicans.

              But there is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching kids about the differences between Democrats and Republicans (and everyone else for that matter) in a professional manner, that are also EMPIRICALLY CORRECT.

              YOUR strategy is the one that is a type of indoctrination because you want kids to proudly remain ignorant of the truth if that truth makes your team look bad. You want teachers to lie by omission.

              1. JesseAz   4 years ago

                You just said they should be teaching stereotypes above lol.

                There are very few hard differences between the left and the right dummy. You above want to push the theory that the GOP is racist as they don't think police shootings are racist in nature, which many studies actually do show. Are you even aware more cops will be shot in the line of duty than minority victims?

                you want kids to proudly remain ignorant of the truth

                What truth Jeff?!?! So far you've only defended the teaching of political narratives under the guise of teaching "capitalism is bad" or "the GOP is racist." You have not advocated for teaching the studies surrounding minority shootings or anything else. You are pushing the teaching of not truths, but subjective narratives.

                How can you be so dense? Do you think everyone here is as dumb as you?

                1. Super Scary   4 years ago

                  "What truth Jeff?!?!"

                  The kind Biden follows? You know, the "truth over facts" kind of "truth".

                2. R Mac   4 years ago

                  “Do you think everyone here is as dumb as you?”

                  Ironically, I’m pretty sure he thinks he’s smarter than most of us.

                3. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

                  I never said "capitalism is bad".
                  I never said "the GOP is racist".
                  These are pure hallucinations on your part.

                  You have not advocated for teaching the studies surrounding minority shootings or anything else.

                  I JUST DID ABOVE WHEN YOU ASKED FOR THEM. Good Lord, your lies are becoming more and more transparent.

                  1. EISTAU Gree-Vance   4 years ago

                    How about teaching kids that they are individuals and therefore should reject the constraints of group identity, Jeff?

                    Too radical for ya?

                    1. R Mac   4 years ago

                      Haha!

          2. Overt   4 years ago

            "No, the clear pedagogical intent here is to teach kids broadly about the differences between Democrats and Republicans"

            Oh my god you are stretching here. This is an AP exam. There is no AP course that talks about the differences between Democrats and Republicans views on "racist police shootings".

            It is CLEARLY a test around math and statistics. They could have chosen any article about fish, birds, marbles in a bag, or whatever. This isn't broad at all- it is a NARROW analysis of one issue. So GTFO with your "broad differences" nonsense. Someone with a political axe to grind tried to use a statistics test to insinuate to kids that Republicans are racist.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

              It is CLEARLY a test around math and statistics.

              If you read the linked article, the school says clearly that this question came from a commercial test bank designed to prepare kids for the AP Government exam.

              1. JesseAz   4 years ago

                And schools shouldn't be biasing discussions on which party is better. This question is out of bounds as it is exceedingly complex. Not they don't break down the argument surrounding police shootings, but just imply one party supports them. It is insane.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

                  And schools shouldn't be biasing discussions on which party is better.

                  You're right, they shouldn't! And that is not what this question does!

                2. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

                  but just imply one party supports them.

                  That implication is entirely in your head. In no reasonable universe does that question even imply that anyone SUPPORTS police shooting unarmed black men. It only discusses a possible MOTIVE.

              2. Overt   4 years ago

                "If you read the linked article, the school says clearly that this question came from a commercial test bank designed to prepare kids for the AP Government exam."

                Damn you are right. I appologize.

                1. Nardz   4 years ago

                  Irrelevant

                2. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

                  Thank you.

          3. R Mac   4 years ago

            “No, the clear pedagogical intent here is to teach kids broadly about the differences between Democrats and Republicans.”

            Why should this be taught in high school at all?

            1. JesseAz   4 years ago

              To indoctrinate students. That is the only reason.

              1. R Mac   4 years ago

                Which is obvious to everyone except Lefty Jeffy.

        2. Super Scary   4 years ago

          "The problem is that the intent is to make Republicans look bad (I can't say for sure, but what the fuck else could it be?)"

          It gives off the same vibes as people going "teehee, I'm just asking questions!": disingenuous and clearly made with intent.

      2. Hank Ferrous   4 years ago

        A question cannot be empirically true. The answer may contain facts which are.

    7. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

      You see, I see shit like this and I think, "This can't be real, there has to be some context here..." and my goddamned hobby horse is this shit.

      1. HorseConch   4 years ago

        And Jeffy shows up to explain to you that it should be taught. If the question were to ask who is most likely to have murdered an unarmed black man, would it be racist to say a young black man?

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

          That is also empirically correct. Go ahead and teach that too, even if Democrats would complain that "it's racist" even when it's not.

          The point is, we want well-educated kids, don't we?

          1. JesseAz   4 years ago

            You want indoctrinated kids. See this thread for a citation.

            You want the teaching of subjective reality, that is why you defend critical theory as taught in school. Even when provided primary material of its subjectivity.

          2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

            It is also empirically correct that Democrats as a group wildly overestimate the number of black men killed by police by orders of magnitude. It was also empirically correct that Democrats wildly overestimated the chance of hospitalization for COVID by orders of magnitude.

            It would never even occur to me to teach that to children in school.

          3. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

            The following test question is empirically correct:

            Trayvon grew up without a father. What is the most likely outcome for Trayvon:

            a. Trayvon will probably end up in prison at some point.
            b. Trayvon will go to Harvard
            c. Trayvon will die from cancer.
            d. Trayvon will become a successful rapper.

            B: Correct

            I would NEVER teach such a thing in school. Ever. Claiming it's "technically correct" misses so many points it's bordering on dangerous.

            1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

              Sorry, heh. A: Correct.

            2. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

              You're right, it is! Sadly! And with topics like these, they have to be treated with respect and professionalism. OF COURSE any teacher who just said "black men will probably go to jail" and just left the discussion there would be in the wrong, but not because of talking about black men, because of the unprofessionalism.

          4. sarcasmic   4 years ago

            The point is, we want well-educated kids, don't we?

            Whatever happened to readin ritin and rithmatic?

    8. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

      And here's the larger point.

      Tweets like this, along with countless other examples - from both left and right - they are intended only to stoke anger and outrage. They do not inform the reader in any meaningful way. They do not discuss context. They do not provide details. Their purpose is to push a narrative through lies by omission. This type of shit is what makes our discourse today so toxic. We've got to be better than that.

      1. JesseAz   4 years ago

        And here's the larger point.

        You're a leftist parading as a libertarian. But nobody here except Brandy, Shrike, and White Mike actually buy it. Well maybe Sarc, but that's more because he has to be a victim so joins other people claiming victimhood.

        1. sarcasmic   4 years ago

          You think anyone who disagrees with you is a leftist. That way you can attack a strawman with rehearsed arguments rather than respond to what someone actually says.

          1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   4 years ago

            We think gaslighting idiots who don’t realize how bad they are at it are leftists

          2. JesseAz   4 years ago

            I like how you are still so desperate to be a victim you can't help stepping in to defend Jeff even when you disagree with him. LOL.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

              Here is a novel concept. Instead of viewing a discussion in terms of who is "attacking" whom, and who is "defending" whom, why not think of a discussion as an intellectual exercise where individual participants have a conversation over a possibly wide ranging set of ideas, without anyone necessarily "attacking" or "defending" any other person? Why not view discussions in terms of IDEAS instead of in terms of PERSONALITIES?

      2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

        I agree with you in principle here. I don't like these single screen shots. I absolutely cannot stand this shit that's going on in schools, but before I get overly animated, I want to see the whole lesson plan, with context. I admit I can't possibly think of a context that would make a question on a test like that "ok" (to paraphrase the children). But... BUT! If that test question turns out to be every bit as awful as it looks, outrage is very much warranted here.

        Again, we're teaching children WHAT to think, not HOW to think.

        1. JesseAz   4 years ago

          Ap exam. No lesson plan. The entire cop shooting debate is far too complex to be in a generalized ap government class.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

            The AP Government exam is associated with an AP-level highschool class on US government or civics or some such. So yes there is a lesson plan for that class. And I would HOPE that in a class like that, there is a discussion on what is the difference between Democrats and Republicans - since these two parties are very important, after all - that was respectful and professional and did not engage in rank stereotyping of either side and was truly informative. Wouldn't that be great?

          2. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

            The entire cop shooting debate is far too complex to be in a generalized ap government class.

            Says who? You? You sell kids too short.

      3. Nardz   4 years ago

        LOL

        "Tweets like this, along with countless other examples - from both left and right - they are intended only to stoke anger and outrage."

        The clump of cancer cells says, while defending a question explicitly designed to stoke anger and outrage.
        Your life has no value, collectivistjeff. End it before you get what you deserve.

      4. Nobartium   4 years ago

        So why are you still posting about it?

        Have you already forgotten your May 1 declaration? Or do not give a shit?

        1. R Mac   4 years ago

          He violated that new rule of his shortly after.

  17. Fist of Etiquette   4 years ago

    The vast majority of the group still identified with their new gender five years later...

    Commence the memory holing of those that didn't.

    1. Rich   4 years ago

      Nah. Just deem them "gender-fluid".

      1. R Mac   4 years ago

        Or dead. From suicide.

    2. But SkyNet is a Private Company   4 years ago

      The vast majority…..of 3 to 12 yos……are 8 to 17…..5 years later.

      Because 8 and 17 yos are developmentally the same? And how do they feel at 30?

      1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

        You're nine and mom's stuck you in dresses for most of your life. What are you supposed to say?

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   4 years ago

          "When I figure out how to get into the gun cabinet that bitch is dead."

      2. Cronut   4 years ago

        Kids between the ages of 8 and 15-ish don't have a whole lot of autonomy because they're still extremely dependent on their parents for most things, and they're not fully sexually mature yet, so they have no idea what they're giving up yet.

        Let me know how they feel when they're 21, able to be independent, and realize they can't ever have kids or a normal sexual relationship with another adult.

    3. Overt   4 years ago

      I love that ENB links to an article we cannot see.

      Here is the ultimate report:
      https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/doi/10.1542/peds.2021-056082/186992/Gender-Identity-5-Years-After-Social-Transition

      The paper asserts
      - Kids were mean age 8.1yrs
      - 5 years after their first transition, 7.3% of those youth had retransitioned at least once.

      So the key problems with this paper are

      1) they are not following these kids until after puberty, which is when previous research suggested that gender dysphoria ends. Most of these kids are currently 13 - 14, so maybe puberty has begun, but it is certainly not complete.

      2) They also deep dive into kids who are on transitioning medication-
      - puberty blockers and gender affirming hormones. They not that among those kids there is little regret noted. But this isn't what skeptics are complaining about. The argument against medication isn't that kids may regret it later, it is that gender dysphoria will likely clear up on its own by the time these kids are adults, and thus ANY medication interfering with the natural development of their body is a bad idea. Interviewing kids with gender dysphoria while they are medicated, and before the age this dysphoria would have cleared up, doesn't tell us much.

      3) Even if we DO accept these numbers that the vast number of kids will remain transitioned, more than 1 in 13 of them will transition back, which is a HUGE number when you talk about life-altering medications. We should be waiting until a) these numbers are closer to 1 in 1000 to avoid risk to children, or b) waiting until they are adults and can determine these risks on their own.

      1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

        Or, you know, just ask them 10 years later, "Now that you transitioned, are you happy?"

      2. But SkyNet is a Private Company   4 years ago

        ENB is not even thinly disguising she is team extreme left woke propagandist anymore

  18. Earth-based Human Skeptic   4 years ago

    Hey, Connor, if you really want to go all-in on body autonomy, how about voluntary cannibalism?

  19. Fist of Etiquette   4 years ago

    ...and many had begun hormonal medications in adolescence to prompt biological changes to align with their gender identities.

    BREAKING NEWS: Impressionable Youth Are Impressionable

    1. JesseAz   4 years ago

      Anorexic females continued to believe they were fat 5 years later even after dieting.

    2. I, Woodchipper   4 years ago

      Brainwashing kids works

  20. Bubba Jones   4 years ago

    The Mississippi abortion law tracks closely with both public opinion and observed behavior.

    Challenging it proves that abortion advocates are extremists. As a result they may have lost everything. But I think the end result will be a good one if laws converge on the Mississippi law.

    Will be interesting to see what comes out of the SD special session.

  21. Mickey Rat   4 years ago

    So the "Satsnic" group thinks the Christian Camp getting their flag to fly is a violation of separation of church and state because the Court ruled they have privilege of being treated like any other group?

    The Satanists are actually saying that the City of Boston were in fact endorsing the agendas of every other organization's flag that was flown. How many of them were viewpoints that could be described as religious in at least some aspect, and therefore should be disallowed, such as the Gay Pride flag?

    These sort of atheist, so-called separation of church and state groups are toxic and discriminatory.

    1. Don't look at me!   4 years ago

      Gay isn’t a religion.

      1. Mickey Rat   4 years ago

        It has a dogma and an Inquisition.

        1. Dillinger   4 years ago

          nobody expects the Rainbow Inquisition.

          1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   4 years ago

            Among our genders are...(list keeps expanding)

      2. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

        Okay.
        The LGBTQ+ movement sure as hell is though.

    2. The Encogitationer   4 years ago

      Toxic and discriminatory? How so? All they wanted was equal time for Baphomet. And if Boston doesn't want flags like theirs, why have a city flagpole at all? Let all the flags people love fly on private property instead.

      1. Mickey Rat   4 years ago

        As Overt says above, they only objected to this when the Court ruled Boston could not viewpoint discriminate against a Christian organization. They did not attempt to have their flag flown previously. They have an animus against Christianity.

        The idea that religious liberty requires religious organizations to be discriminated against is mad.

      2. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

        Overt's point is that the edglords viewed it as an implicit endorsement, rather than simply providing a place to advertise your Christian camp or sexual politics.

  22. Fist of Etiquette   4 years ago

    ...his agency had applied Marsy's Law, the victims rights amendment, to both sides of this shooting, shielding the names of the deputies who fired and the people they shot...

    Lol victims.

  23. Earth-based Human Skeptic   4 years ago

    'The Libertarian Party asked members about abortion. "Nobody else has the right to decide if, when and how you become a parent."'

    How about others deciding that once you squirt out that kid, you have to keep being a parent?

    #LibertariansAgainstResponsibility

    1. Brandybuck   4 years ago

      It's a bad question to ask. The one about choosing to be a parent. It may fit on a bumper sticker, but that's about it. It cheapens the whole discourse in its banality.

      1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

        But it's prescient, not banal.

    2. Mickey Rat   4 years ago

      That only applies to sperm producing people.

      Once they have done the deed the choice is in the uterus owner's hands by the logic of abortion rights.

    3. Don't look at me!   4 years ago

      Nobody else has the right to decide if, when and how you become a parent murderer.

    4. A Thinking Mind   4 years ago

      I'm on board with this person. We need to stop the practice of breeding women against their will. I'm surprised it's lasted as long as it has.

      1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   4 years ago

        I just impregnate my herd once so I can keep them producing milk

    5. Claptrap   4 years ago

      What about the father's right to an abortion? If abortion is to be legal, then both potential parents should have some say over whether or not it occurs.

    6. DarrenM   4 years ago

      If you don't want to be a parent, don't choose to put yourself in a situation where you can get pregnant (or impregnate someone else).

  24. Fist of Etiquette   4 years ago

    More companies are pledging to protect employees' abortion access.

    THEY BETTER NOT BE TAKING DOWN THEIR BLM SIGNS TO MAKE ROOM FOR IT.

    1. Rich   4 years ago

      You're on a roll today, Fist!

      The BLM signs should be showing up at pro-life rallies and protests.

      1. Fist of Etiquette   4 years ago

        If these things don't all bleed together my worldview will be rocked.

  25. Fist of Etiquette   4 years ago

    More companies are pledging to protect employees' abortion access.

    A barren employee is a happy employer.

    1. Don't look at me!   4 years ago

      Cuts down on day care costs.

      1. R Mac   4 years ago

        Also less sick days.

        1. Cronut   4 years ago

          Also, no parental leave.

          1. HorseConch   4 years ago

            You would think that all the corporation haters are in favor of corporations paying for them to kill their baby.

            1. Moonrocks   4 years ago

              But that's the taxpayers' job.

  26. Fist of Etiquette   4 years ago

    Mutations in two new omicron variants are allowing them to reinfect people who've already been infected with the omicron edition of COVID-19.

    New what variants? OK, boomer. What is this? 2021?

  27. Think It Through   4 years ago

    So crazy kids didn't become sane in 5 years? And might never become sane? That's perfectly logical, but doesn't affirm the logic that a person born XY with a penis is really a woman.

  28. Brandybuck   4 years ago

    One it gets to culture war issues, one must remember that any laws, regulations, and rulings are going to apply to the both sides. Because that's how the law works.

    Years ago I did some substitute teaching at the high school. One day I came in after a student had been sent home for wearing a Black Sabbath t-shirt, because it had a pentacle and baphomet on it. The reason being that the t-shirt was religious. So when I show up half the campus was wearing Christian themed t-shirts, most of which were from Christian rock bands.

    I think the administration got the message. No one else was sent home.

    So when you ban one religion in a secular society you actually end up banning them all. And if you allow one in a secular society then you also allow them all. So yes, if people are allowed to fly the Christian flag at city hall, then Satanists can fly their flag too, and Muslims theirs.

    Like it or not, we have a secular society and a secular government. Doesn't mean it's anti-religion, but also doesn't mean it's pro-religion. It's up the the individual.

    p.s. Christian flag is not in the Bible, and is NOT universally accepted by Christians. It's pretty much a US evangelical thing.

    p.p.s. This is not to argue against flying a religious flag at city hall. The legal issues are complex in a secular society governed by the First Amendment. Just pointing out that your freedom of religion also applies to everyone.

    1. Think It Through   4 years ago

      The Boston flag-flying policy is currently "under review." My prediction is it will be scrapped. Why do it anyway? The Christians and Satanists shouldn't be included but if the program exists, they SHOULD be included. "A game where the only way to win, is not to play."

      1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   4 years ago

        If they fly a Pride flag or a green flag, then the Westboro “God hates fags” flag and an ExxonMobil flag should also get equal time

        1. Michael Ejercito   4 years ago

          You got that right!

      2. CE   4 years ago

        A California city already went through this, when they allowed BLM to create a large slogan mural on a city street. Some far-right insurrectionist group asked if they could also mark their slogan (something innocuous like making America great once more) on a street, and the city suddenly decided they didn't want to be in the "politicizing city streets" business.

      3. DarrenM   4 years ago

        While applications for flag-raising events are still available online, the city's website says that "effective October 19, 2021, the City of Boston is no longer accepting flag-raising applications.

    2. Agammamon   4 years ago

      We do not have a secular society. And I say this as an atheist. We do - or are supposed to - have a secular government. But our society is highly religious. Just not from a single religion.

    3. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

      "most of which were from Christian rock bands"

      Gross.

      So yes, if people are allowed to fly the Christian flag at city hall, then Satanists can fly their flag too, and Muslims theirs.

      I don't think anyone disagreed with this.

      p.s. Christian flag is not in the Bible, and is NOT universally accepted by Christians. It's pretty much a US evangelical thing.

      It's not even an evangelical thing. Most of them think a Christian flag world be idolatry.

      1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

        *would

      2. CE   4 years ago

        But not the US flag.

      3. Brandybuck   4 years ago

        > Most of them think a Christian flag world be idolatry.

        Fundamentalists, yes. Evangelicals? Depends on what their preacher tells them to think. The Bible is a mere accoutrement for most modern evangelicals. It's far more a cultural movement than a religious movement at this point in time.

        p.s. I find the whole Christian Flag Pledge of Allegiance to be as repulsive as the secular US Pledge of Allegiance. Why the hell are we pledging to a piece of cloth? Blasphemous in both cases.

        1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

          "Depends on what their preacher tells them to think."

          Depends more on what they think as individuals, and then they go shopping for a church that matches. They're incredibly individualistic and will decamp to a different church pretty quickly.
          There are a few that do get culty around a certain pastor, but usually Catholics are more likely to listen to what a priest tells them. They're far more authoritarian and hierarchical.

          "The Bible is a mere accoutrement for most modern evangelicals."

          Again, this is Catholic. Evangelicals believe in the Protestant doctrine of Sola scriptura. That the sole source of authority for the Christian is scripture, and that the individual is responsible for interpretation.
          Catholics on the other hand believe that the Magisterium of the Church, tradition and church decisions has the same authority.

          "It's far more a cultural movement than a religious movement at this point in time."

          You're not wrong. I call it American Christianism. Where the flag, George Washington and the Declaration of Independence share the same sort of religious milieu as Jesus, scripture and the prophets.

          "Blasphemous in both cases."

          Yup.

      4. EISTAU Gree-Vance   4 years ago

        “Most of which were from Christian rock bands.”

        Gross.

        Yeah, I don’t think half the kids in any school have a t shirt from a Christian rock band. Brandy’s full of shit. Again.

  29. Fist of Etiquette   4 years ago

    Mutations in two new omicron variants are allowing them to reinfect people who've already been infected with the omicron edition of COVID-19.

    Overdoing it a little bit with the off switch, fellas.

  30. JesseAz   4 years ago

    Justices are now canceling public appearances as leftists threaten violence including going to their houses with their families to scream threats.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/justice-alito-cancels-public-appearance-amid-roe-leak-threats

    1. Moonrocks   4 years ago

      No biggie.

    2. Longtobefree   4 years ago

      Peacefully scream at their families.
      Still waiting for Twitter to explain why it allows tweets about stolen material.

    3. SRG   4 years ago

      As it is still the case that abortion is a constitutional right, Alito is lucky that someone isn't using their 2A right to protect their constitutional right.

      1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

        "it is still the case that abortion is a constitutional right"

        Point out that bit in the constitution for me, would you?

      2. Cronut   4 years ago

        Sounds kind of insurrectiony of you.

        1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

          It's only wrong when conservatives do it.

    4. Michael Ejercito   4 years ago

      That sounds a bit insurrection-y.

    5. Cronut   4 years ago

      "Fiery but mostfully peaceful protest at Amy Coney Barret's house this weekend..."

      "An explosive detonated outside of Brett Kavanaugh's house last night during a protest against the Trump appointee's support for eliminating abortion rights."

      1. CE   4 years ago

        Hey, they said it was fiery.

      2. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

        Those darn MAGAots. Setting off bombs outside of supreme court justices houses.

        Biden warned us that they were extremists.

  31. R Mac   4 years ago

    If sqrlsy and his friends want to fly their flag, who are we to stop them?

    1. Outlaw Josey Wales   4 years ago

      What would the church of Squirrels flag look like?

      I'm picturing a ring of squirrels perched on seat of a commode nibbling something, surrounded by an adoring crowd of poet laureates and lizards, and with only a Gubmint fence to keep them at bay.

      SQRLSY?

      1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

        Close enough for now! We need a Church of Scienfoology Committee to study it some more, though!

        (Separation of Church and State will prevent Government Almighty from writing a research grant for this, for us, so for THESE kinds of purposes, we will be the SCIENCE of Scienfoology! L. Ron Hubbard has taught us well, by examples set for us!)

  32. Jerryskids   4 years ago

    Biden has pressed Congress to codify Roe v. Wade, the only mechanism outside the Supreme Court—or a constitutional amendment, which seems even less likely—that could protect abortion rights.

    They've had 50 years to codify Roe v Wade, why would they do it now? As it is, Congress can point to SCOTUS and not get their fingerprints on the abortion issue just the same as they've laid off all their other responsibilities on the Executive branch. What is it exactly that Congress is actually responsible for these days that individual Congressmen can be held accountable for?

    1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

      They are only accountable for their WORDS, is all!

      On the "R" side, they MUST emit noises of belief in Trump's "Big Lie", or else!

      On the "D" side, they MUST emit noises of "woken-ness", or else!

    2. CE   4 years ago

      Depends on whether or not the new court opinion says that Congress was never granted that power, so it should be left to the states to regulate or not. Then a Constitutional amendment would be required first.

  33. JesseAz   4 years ago

    Psakis answer to the question on why Biden thinks the gop will segregate gay kids from school is a wild one.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/what-is-he-talking-about-peter-doocy-asks-why-biden-thinks-republicans-will-segregate-lgbtq-kids

    “Well, I think, Peter, we’ve seen extreme laws that target LGBTQ families, their kids, across the country, and I think what he’s saying is we don’t know what they’re capable of, given what they’ve already done to date,” Psaki claimed.

    Note she couldn't name an actual example.

    1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   4 years ago

      BECCAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS THEYRE EVERYWHERE!!!11!!!11!!!!!!

    2. But SkyNet is a Private Company   4 years ago

      And Peter Dooley is the wacky asshole

    3. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kai-shappley-texas-trans-girl-b1835816.html

      https://www.them.us/story/mom-of-trans-girl-death-threats-biden-town-hall

      A simple Google search will find lots more! None are so blind as the ones who won't even look!

      1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

        Neither of those are evidence of Biden's allegation.

        1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

          "...and I think what he’s saying is we don’t know what they’re capable of, given what they’ve already done to date,” Psaki claimed."

          I have given you evidence of what "they" (hateful assholes) are capable of. Is there ANY hate that you do NOT approve of?

          1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

            That's not an answer. Those aren't examples of "gop will segregate gay kids from school".

            Stop being so dishonest. What would M. Scott Peck say?

            1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

              Self-righteous, authoritarian GOP adherents will harass, hate, and threaten openly LGBT students and their families till the victims BEG for separate or segregated schools! And then GOP politicians will be OUR HEROES and FILL that demand! ... There-there, now, feeling better now? And WHAT is the big difference here, then?

              1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

                Making shit up and calling names still isn't making it true.

                1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

                  My links show it to be true! Politicians pander to the masses! And if the masses hate XYZ, the politicians will pander, and hate XYZ! Did You not KNOW that, Perfect One?

                  1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

                    No they don't.

                    One tells a dubious story about death threats on Twitter (Why is a 10-year-old on Twitter?), and an abuser mom who accidentally (roll eyes) deleted all the harrassing phone messages she swears she got.

                    The second is about another disgusting abuser who is indulging her Muchausen-by-proxy by gaslighting her kid, and whining about the totally justified kickback she got for bragging about it. Not about the child at all.

                    Neither has anything to do with the GOP bullying kids.

                    It's time for you to stop constantly lying to us, Sqrlsy. You're not clever. You're not fooling anyone.

                    1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

                      And the stories of the Jesus-killers, Mahatma Gandhi-killers, and Martin Luther King Jr.-killers are just cases of whining cry-babies objecting to being righteously killed by the Politically and Tribally Correct Righteous Ones, right, Oh Great Politically and Tribally Correct Righteous One? Spin for us some MORE, won't You, Perfectly Hateful One?

                      How DARE Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr., DELETE their hate-filled messages directed at them, asking that they should be KILLED, or that they should commit suicide?!?! Like YOU, death-lusting maniacal hate-filled death-worshipper, have called on others to commit suicide? You can NEVER be WRONG, can You, Perfect Slave of the Evil One?

                      The intelligent, well-informed, and benevolent members of tribes have ALWAYS been resented by those who are made to look relatively worse (often FAR worse), as compared to the advanced ones. Especially when the advanced ones denigrate tribalism. The advanced ones DARE to openly mock “MY Tribe’s lies leading to violence against your tribe GOOD! Your tribe’s lies leading to violence against MY Tribe BAD! VERY bad!” And then that’s when the Jesus-killers, Mahatma Gandhi-killers, Martin Luther King Jr.-killers, etc., unsheath their long knives!

                      “Do-gooder derogation” (look it up) is a socio-biologically programmed instinct. SOME of us are ethically advanced enough to overcome it, using benevolence and free will! For details, see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/ and http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/ .

                      In conclusion, troglodyte, thanks for helping me to prove my points!

                    2. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

                      So you got caught lying and now you're stamping your foot and calling names. As expected of you, Sqrlsy.

                    3. R Mac   4 years ago

                      So predictable, shiteater.

      2. Overt   4 years ago

        Neither of those address the question at hand. Care to try again?

        1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

          A question at hand (which is what I am addressing) is how hateful the hateful assholes can get! Is this no problem at all, in your mind? I know where Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer (with Her Perfect invitations for others to commit suicide) stands. Where do YOU stand?

          1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

            So you've lied and now you've got nothing.

            1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

              Haters hate! You've proved my points! (They also lie.)

              1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

                Actually you kind of proved my point.

                1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

                  And Perfect People are NEVER wrong! So You (Perfect Necrophiliac and Narcissist) prove me to be correct yet again!

                  1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

                    Not as wrong as you, anyway. You're unbelievably retarded.

                    1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

                      Back to foot stomping and calling names.

  34. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   4 years ago

    So according to noah Smith marriage equality was achieved by creating a supermajority of voters, not by the Supreme Court ruling on 14th amendment grounds.
    Relying on someone this incredibly stupid for your analysis makes you look retarded. Get off Twitter and read a damn book.
    But I don't think ENB has an attention span that lasts longer than 250 charecters

    1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

      Everywhere they put gay marriage to the ballot it failed, except for Ireland and they had to take votes from throughout the EU to do it.

      It's always been imposed by the courts.

      1. ElvisIsReal   4 years ago

        And in the most disgusting political display ever, the very Democrats who stood in the way of gay marriage for decades took credit for its 'passage'.

  35. R Mac   4 years ago

    Joe Biden said that MAGA is the most extreme political movement in American history. So glad we got rid of that divisive Trump and are back to normal political discourse, right Reason?

    1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   4 years ago

      Really, they should be more like the totally not radical party and just secede from the country over their right to own other human beings, push for segregation in all aspects of life, embrace eugenics, and encourage prepubescent children to cut their dicks off.

    2. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

      Imagine the pants shitting by the Reasonistas if Trump had said Democrats were the most extreme political movement in American history.

      1. I, Woodchipper   4 years ago

        it would be a more accurate statement too!

    3. CE   4 years ago

      Now let's get back to canceling student debt, taxing wealth, abolishing the Electoral College and the Senate and the First and Second Amendments. You know, routine stuff that isn't extreme.

  36. JesseAz   4 years ago

    Cutting off your kids genitals is apparently a human and healthcare right. Should also be paid for by insurers.

    https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/05/bidens-hhs-secretary-cutting-off-kids-genitals-is-health-care-and-taxpayers-should-pay-for-it/

    1. Rich   4 years ago

      What's magic about genitals? Let's also include the right to decapitation.

      1. Don't look at me!   4 years ago

        Want to lose 20 pounds of ugly fat?

        Cut off your head.

    2. Claptrap   4 years ago

      Transition surgery is plainly medical care for those with such severe gender dysphoria that it cannot be solved psychiatrically. The problems are that:

      1. Far more people are experimenting with gender swapping than likely need to, often for faddish reasons
      2. Parents are kept out of the loop on minors' status in the process, often as a matter of law
      3. Specialist physicians are too quick to abandon or outright unwilling to attempt to treat transsexualism psychiatrically, or to allow minors to potentially outgrow it

      1. Zeb   4 years ago

        Yeah, the abandonment of trying to approach it as a psyciatric problem seems like a really bad idea. I'm willing to accept that for some people that's just how it is and transitioning and body modification may be the best outcome available to them. But that's never going to really solve the problem that they have. Whatever you do, you will never really be the other sex, you will never be able to reproduce or be fully sexually functional if you go for the genital surgeries or more extreme hormone treatments. That may be best for some, but I can't believe that it is universally the best treatment for gender dysphoria.

        1. Claptrap   4 years ago

          Whatever you do, you will never really be the other sex

          That's what I mean by "psychiatrically" - having a professional work with them so that they might to accept the reality of their situation. Maybe the wrong choice of words.

          Agreed totally with your post.

          1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

            For more details on what y'all are saying...

            I for one sure wish that the modern medical establishment was as data-driven as the CLAIM to be! But NOOOOO, we may NOT collect data, if it might be used (in BAD ways) by the troglodytes!

            http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/03/brickbat-dont-ask-dont-tell#comment
            I am utterly SHOCKED to learn that NOT offending the “tranny brigade” of PC people is WAY more important than the actual happiness of trannies and potential trannies!!! Or even STUDYING such matters!

            Speaking of such things, there are biochemical, often off-label, solutions to your urges towards becoming a tranny, which MIGHT actually lead to better results! To MORE happiness, for many potential trannies! To becoming happy with your body, as it already is! Imagine that!

            See http://www.drugs.com/condition/gender-dysphoria.html for “Off Label” uses of drugs for suppressing “gender dysphoria”… 6 drugs listed in web link above, to include (pretty obviously) testosterone…

            Also use below as search-string…
            “Transgender woman, who claims pills for male hair-loss sparked gender change, opens up about 'life and death struggle'”

            Concerns male-hair-loss “…drug Propecia, called finasteride, to halt the onset of hereditary baldness”, which feminized his / her body, and brought around the desire for a sex change, according to him-now-her.

            So then Propecia AKA (generic) finasteride sounds like a darned-good choice for an off-label drug use, if you are female, contemplating sex-change to male, and worrying that your marriage might not survive such a sex change… Which is a strong possibility! Try this first, to see if maybe you’d like to stay female, before you make drastic changes…

          2. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

            Also see “The successful treatment of a gender dysphoric patient with Pimozide” at http://www.researchgate.net/publication/14365362_The_successful_treatment_of_a_genderdysphoric_patient_with_Pimozide

            (I hope that the PC police won’t be bashing my door down soon, for my sins, in reporting this.)

            See https://reason.com/blog/2017/10/03/brickbat-dont-ask-dont-tell/ , right from the top of that...
            "The ethics committee at Bath Spa University, a public university in England, barred a graduate student in psychotherapy from studying transgender people who regret having reassignment surgery."
            The "data driven medical and psychological communities" will not ALLOW the study of people who have regretted becoming "trans"!!! We will ONLY study the (supposedly, outwardly) HAPPY trans!!!
            Geezum, do you think that there could be some... BIAS in the folks who "study" these matters?!?!?!

          3. Zeb   4 years ago

            I wasn't trying to contradict you at all if that's how it came across.

        2. JesseAz   4 years ago

          psychiatrics problems do not decrease post operation. Statistics show they actually go up slightly.

          There are many ailments that are life long. We don't force people to start playing pretend with schizophrenics. They are generally subjected to life long work with doctors to control their issues.

          1. Claptrap   4 years ago

            Whether or not it's an effective treatment is a secondary concern, and not for me to judge.

            The state shouldn't force insurers to cover the treatment if the insurers find it to be ineffective. At the same time, it's perfectly reasonable for Medicare/aid to cover it if they do judge it effective.

            We don't force people to start playing pretend with schizophrenics. They are generally subjected to life long work with doctors to control their issues.

            No, but others with severe mental illness do have surgical options which promise relief of acute issues, and if such an option existed for schizophrenics then it would be immoral to prevent them from attempting such treatments.

            1. JesseAz   4 years ago

              it's perfectly reasonable for Medicare/aid to cover it if they do judge it effective.

              Who is they?

              Paying for lipo or plastic surgery may make someone feel better about themselves, should that be paid for as well?

              No, but others with severe mental illness do have surgical options which promise relief of acute issues,

              Except the statistics show on average the community gets no relief. And in fact, quite a few studies show it makes it worse as they realize the surgery didn't actually fix their mental issues, and now they have to deal with a life long change to their bodies that didn't actually help anything at all.

              1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

                Citations would be helpful!

              2. Claptrap   4 years ago

                Who is they?

                CMS, as they do for all sorts of things.

                Except the statistics show on average the community gets no relief. And in fact, quite a few studies show it makes it worse as they realize the surgery didn't actually fix their mental issues, and now they have to deal with a life long change to their bodies that didn't actually help anything at all.

                My heart bleeds for them, but they're adults (presumably; children aren't really fit to make this kind of decision) and they should have understood the consequences and risks before going down the path.

                If the treatment protocol is not so effective in the general population then doctors should be more judicious about its use, which was exactly my point in the first place.

                1. JesseAz   4 years ago

                  This is a discussion on who pays for their actions. In this article it was HHS saying that taxpayers should pay for it.

          2. Zeb   4 years ago

            Is that true universally? I don't imagine we could know that. I tend to agree that in general it's probably not the best course. But if there is a small group for which it is, then so be it.

            1. JesseAz   4 years ago

              Why should tax payers pay for a maybe effective treatment here and not in other cases such as with generalized plastic surgery?

      2. I, Woodchipper   4 years ago

        ^ Summary

        Children are brainwashed at school and peer-pressured into going 'trans'. It's the new goth for tweens. Then when the parents find out and intervene, they are called abusive and the state threatens to take their kids away for witholding "proper care" for their supposedly 'trans" kid.

        This is how it's done. This is how the cultural revolution and red guards crush the regular folks.

  37. JesseAz   4 years ago

    Stacy abrams was one of the well connected who made her wealth off of tax payer funded PPP loans from friendly distributors of the money, also failed to pay off her loans to creditors despite the influx of taxpayer cash.

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/stacey-abrams-tied-loan-firm-shifted-its-liabilities-us-taxpayers

  38. JesseAz   4 years ago

    Durham successfully gets judge to allow a review of documents Clinton and FusionGPS claimed were protected under legal privileges. Reminded the court about Clinton's agreement with the SEC regarding false election billing to do so.

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/john-durham-scores-two-major-court-wins-ahead-clinton

    1. R Mac   4 years ago

      Local story.

    2. JasonAZ   4 years ago

      I hear John Durham is very suicidal lately...

  39. Derp-o-Matic 6000   4 years ago

    This is the first I have ever heard of the allegedly common "New Right" view that America is Rome awaiting its Caesar.

    1. JesseAz   4 years ago

      The discussions of a collapsing empire have been going on for decades with the left promoting it.

    2. Cronut   4 years ago

      They were holding it to see who won the Ohio primary. They weren't sure who they hated yet.

    3. Nardz   4 years ago

      We should be so lucky.
      Caesar wasn't a villain.
      Cato sure as hell was though.

  40. R Mac   4 years ago

    “The White House realizes its hands are tired”

    Freudian slip, ENB?

    1. Ska   4 years ago

      Better hand jobs to be found on Wisconsin Ave, anyway.

  41. JesseAz   4 years ago

    Wisconsin judge rebukes state election officials for destroying records while state prosecutor is investigating the 2020 elections.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/another-judge-rips-wisconsin-2020-election-investigator-for-destroying-records

    1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   4 years ago

      Obstruction of ... hm... something... just us...no, that's not it....

      1. JesseAz   4 years ago

        They used the same excuse as Clinton, they were unimportant documents.

        1. HorseConch   4 years ago

          I guess they aren't once they're shredded. That being said, pre-shred, I'm assuming they were pretty important, or they wouldn't have been shredded.

    2. R Mac   4 years ago

      Until judges do more than “rebuke” people for violating election laws and destroying evidence there’s no reason for them to stop.

      1. Moonrocks   4 years ago

        Yeah, I would think something like this would be a prison thing.

      2. D-Pizzle   4 years ago

        Rebuke is pretty harsh, just one step away from censure.

    3. ElvisIsReal   4 years ago

      Rebuked by firing and/or locking them up, right?

    4. I, Woodchipper   4 years ago

      most secure election ever.

  42. Derp-o-Matic 6000   4 years ago

    Also, abolishing the Senate essentially requires a unanimous vote, per Article V. Good luck with that.

    1. Think It Through   4 years ago

      May be obtained if you don't let insurrectionists vote.

  43. JesseAz   4 years ago

    Media matters is promising to garber an advertiser boycott of Twitter if musk ends up buying them.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/05/media-matters-threatens-elon-musk-with-advertiser-boycott-of-twitter/

    1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   4 years ago

      I view the Musk/Twitter thing as win-win. If he succeeds in what he's attempting and the Twitter is marginally less of an echo chamber, I guess that's a good thing. But if he fails, if all the Blue Checks actually follow through on their exodus to Canada Parler umm..somewhere... and Twitter ceases to exist, great. I consider that a fantastic use of someone else's $44B.

      1. R Mac   4 years ago

        Truth Social FTW!

      2. Briggs Cunningham   4 years ago

        He will either reform Twitter and make it more open, which is a good thing or he will destroy the platform altogether which is an even better thing. I really can't see a downside to the whole thing.

        1. Dillinger   4 years ago

          >>downside

          some kind of Halloween III thing where everyone is zombied by Elon through his new toy

    2. Overt   4 years ago

      Remember: Open Society is totally about free and open societies- especially those where private actors collude to prevent people from speaking.

  44. Don't look at me!   4 years ago

    It’s been two weeks since masks haven’t been required on airplanes.
    Why isn’t everyone dead?

    1. Longtobefree   4 years ago

      Magic 8 ball says -
      "because Fauci is a lying liar who lies about lying".

    2. R Mac   4 years ago

      I heard the newest variant takes THREE weeks to kill everyone.

    3. Hank Ferrous   4 years ago

      We were informed that new cases were spreading at a 40%/day rate, if I recall correctly by one of the Chicken Littles. So, everybody must be dead several times over, by the cowards' estimation.

  45. JesseAz   4 years ago

    The group—which is not so much a bunch of devil worshippers as a group dedicated to protecting free speech, freedom of religion, and separation of church and state—applied to raise and lower its flag this July in celebration of "Satanic Appreciation Week."

    Why don't conservative groups get such nice descriptions?

  46. JesseAz   4 years ago

    The White House realizes its hands are tied if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. "Biden has pressed Congress to codify Roe v. Wade, the only mechanism outside the Supreme Court—or a constitutional amendment, which seems even less likely—that could protect abortion rights. But Democrats concede that effort seems out of reach," reports The Washington Post.

    Alitos draft heavily implies a national law regarding abortion would not be constitutional. The draft intends this to be a state issue, not a federal one.

  47. Nardz   4 years ago

    https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1522221805959663616?t=0jQkbXt3gOWCuxYrUaHEpA&s=19

    Heavy-duty fencing has been put up around the US Supreme Court following protests & threats of violence by the left over abortion. The same type of fencing was put up around the Portland federal courthouse due to #Antifa attacks in 2020. It remains today.

    [Video]

    1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   4 years ago

      Is Chief Warren in solitary confinement for inciting an insurrection yet?

      1. creech   4 years ago

        In the cell next to VP Harris who said, yesterday, "Let us fight with everything we've got."

    2. CE   4 years ago

      If everyone in your government needs a security detail, maybe they have too much power.

    3. I, Woodchipper   4 years ago

      also those violent right-wingers are a real threat to democracy

  48. Derp-o-Matic 6000   4 years ago

    I encourage them to try to pass a national law.

    First, it would require Democrats to take a specific stand on how late abortion can be allowed. What will that be? 24 weeks? Up to birth? Anything that will satisfy the base will utterly repulse most Americans.

    Second, it almost certainly would be unconstitutional and might give SCROTUS an opportunity to scale back some of its Commerce Cause jurisprudence.

    1. D-Pizzle   4 years ago

      They will say until birth in cases where it is necessary to protect the health of the mother (they'll say "mother" here, not "birthing person") while obscuring from the public their comically broad definition of "health," just as is done with Roe/Doe.

  49. Sevo   4 years ago

    Newsom banks on very short memories:

    "Gavin Newsom leans into his pandemic record with first ad in California governor's race"
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Gavin-Newsom-leans-into-his-pandemic-record-with-17138147.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result

    Only put millions out of work, demolished several industries, forced thousands of small businesses into bankruptcy. Got caught sans mask at a restaurant during the height his 'you MUST wear a mask everywhere!' dictat.
    What's not to like?

    1. Commenter_XY   4 years ago

      CA elected to keep him = recall election

      CA is welcome to him. We in the People's Republic of NJ have a turd named Phailing Phil Murphy running the show. Phil's claim to fame is he managed to kill thousands of elderly nursing home patients two years ago through his utter incompetence.

    2. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   4 years ago

      I was listening to KPFA the other day and one of their idiots was on there reading the riot act to Newsom about how he doesn't serve their rogues gallery of malcontents and thought to myself that these people who think Newsom only cares about his cronies SAF didn't vote to recall him.

  50. Bill Dalasio   4 years ago

    Rather than "civil war muttering" on social media, people should work "to produce change by building supermajority national support via grassroots organizing and mass persuasion," writes Smith. "This is how marriage equality was achieved.

    Except, regardless of what one thinks of same sex marriage, that isn't how it was achieved. At all. It was achieved by the same judicial fiat that has the progressives currently up in arms about abortion. That turn of events should give progressives pause to recognize that any tactic that they adopt will, if successful, be adopted by the other side.

    1. Nardz   4 years ago

      Totalitarians don't intend for there to be an other side.

  51. Claptrap   4 years ago

    JD Vance believes we're in a "late Republican" period wherein America is Rome awaiting our Caesar. He says, "We're going to have to get pretty wild & pretty far out there."

    His allies say, "The phrase 'extra-constitutional' has come up quite a bit."

    This is fascist rhetoric.

    Oh, for fuck's sake. They clipped the most important part of the fucking quote:

    "We are in a late republican period," Vance said later, evoking the common New Right view as Rome awaiting its Caesar. "If we're to push back against it, we're going to have to get pretty wild, and pretty far out there, and go in directions that a lot of conservatives right now are uncomfortable with.

    This is why nobody trusts the press. He's specifically warning against letting the country drift into Caesarism.

    1. SRG   4 years ago

      "He's specifically warning against letting the country drift into Caesarism"

      And hence, scarcely concealing it, encouraging political assassination.

      1. Claptrap   4 years ago

        Where is this? It's certainly not in the article the poster references.

        Unless you mean this, though taking it to mean violence is honestly pretty stupid:

        “So one [option] is to basically accept that this entire thing is going to fall in on itself,” Vance went on. “And so the task of conservatives right now is to preserve as much as can be preserved,” waiting for the “inevitable collapse” of the current order.

        He said he thought this was pessimistic. “I tend to think that we should seize the institutions of the left,” he said. “And turn them against the left. We need like a de-Baathification program, a de-woke-ification program.”

        “I think Trump is going to run again in 2024,” he said. “I think that what Trump should do, if I was giving him one piece of advice: Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people.”

        “And when the courts stop you,” he went on, “stand before the country, and say—” he quoted Andrew Jackson, giving a challenge to the entire constitutional order—“the chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.”

        This is a description, essentially, of a coup.

        (Sidenote: it's a good piece, and I recommend reading it)

        1. Bill Dalasio   4 years ago

          SRG was making a joke (presumably in agreement with you). In Rome anti-Caesar sentiment was ultimately expressed on the Ides of March through the murder of Caesar.

          1. Sevo   4 years ago

            Not sure about that; several comments yesterday suggest otherwise.

    2. sarcasmic   4 years ago

      So much power has been concentrated into the executive branch that we may as well be there already.

      1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   4 years ago

        Barry Pen and Phone was the first Caesar

        1. Nardz   4 years ago

          No, he was more a Sulla type.
          Though it doesn't work chronologically, BO most resembled Nero

    3. Fats of Fury   4 years ago

      Senile - check
      Unpopular - check
      Father of a degenerate - check
      Installed by Praetorian guard - check and mate.
      All hail Claudius Caesar. Just waiting for someone to slip him the mushrooms.

  52. Dillinger   4 years ago

    >>Abolish the Senate?

    repeal the 17th

  53. Dillinger   4 years ago

    oh hey also everybody be safe out there the president says that maga crowd is dangerous.

    1. creech   4 years ago

      At least Sleepy Joe quickly corrected himself to note "in recent history." Even he may remember those Democrat terror groups that seceded from the Union and then, in defeat, raised the KKK. Or FDR's administration throwing peaceful citizens "who didn't look like the rest of us" into concentration camps.

  54. Derp-o-Matic 6000   4 years ago

    The Satanic Temple is responding to the Supreme Court's ruling by applying with the city of Boston to fly its flag in front of City Hall.

    Hey guys, remember Satanists? Those guys are tough AND cool!!!

    1. Briggs Cunningham   4 years ago

      Satanists are always just garden variety leftist weenie atheists. A typical wicken coven of chicks could kick their asses. If they actually were Satanists, rather than just leftist nerds, they would at least be interesting and maybe a little fun. As it is, they are about as fun as an academic conference on intersectionality.

      1. Hank Ferrous   4 years ago

        They are an academic conference on intersectionality.

      2. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

        It's juvenilia built around the premise of "Fuck you, Dad!"

        It's also a uniquely Western phenomena. The idea of a religion dedicated to being a dick to followers of a different religion.
        You don't get a that kind of thing in areas dominated by Eastern Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and Shinto.

        1. CE   4 years ago

          Are you sure?

          1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   4 years ago

            Ummm, yeah

          2. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

            Reasonably, yes.

  55. Michael Ejercito   4 years ago

    Would you believe me if I told you FJB voted to pverturn Roe?

    http://news.yahoo.com/flashback-biden-backed-amendment-overturn-223723012.html

    1. Briggs Cunningham   4 years ago

      Of course he did. Biden is a complete piece of garbage who has always been willing to say or do anything that he felt was necessary to get ahead.

  56. Dillinger   4 years ago

    >>Biden has pressed Congress to codify Roe v. Wade

    but then from where would all the abortion dollars come?

  57. Moonrocks   4 years ago

    Is it just me, or have there been far more typos in the comments than usual in the last couple of weeks?

    1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

      My new phone dislikes my accent.

      1. sarcasmic   4 years ago

        Nobody likes Canadian accents.

        1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

          Remember folks, sarcasmic never starts shit, it's always everyone else's fault.
          Now that I've responded to his provocation, he'll claim it's ad hominem or tu quoque.

          1. sarcasmic   4 years ago

            Hoser.

            1. Don't look at me!   4 years ago

              Ideas!

              1. sarcasmic   4 years ago

                Take off, eh.

          2. Sevo   4 years ago

            Further remember that sarcasmic is a liar and entirely too stupid to remember the lies he told even five minutes ago; the asshole's a gray box to me.

            1. Don't look at me!   4 years ago

              Also, he isn’t muting anymore.

              1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

                White Mike and Jeffy aren't either. I think they realized that for the purposes of trolling and fifty-centing, muting is self-defeating.

          3. American Mongrel   4 years ago

            Oh come on... yea he occasionally says absolutely retarded shit meant to cause trouble, but making fun of Canadians doesn't cross that line.
            French Canadian English accent is the most retarded sounding accent I've ever heard. Regular Canadians sound like Uber yoopers.
            Save your vitriol for the Toni's and mikes of the board.

    2. Ali Akbar Alexander   4 years ago

      I find it’s very important to use proper grammar and use spell check before I post comments at the most considered location for libertarian thought— the Reason comment board. Lots of great intellect here, I’ll tell you!

      1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

        Poor Shrike.

    3. Derp-o-Matic 6000   4 years ago

      Fucj orf ashole

    4. CE   4 years ago

      If you're an advanced AI bot, you don't want to give yourself away by standing out for having perfect grammar and spelling. Sew you throw in a few typoes.

  58. Azathoth!!   4 years ago

    I am at a loss to discern why anyone would think that a deep blue city like Boston would have a problem flying the flag of a deeply atheist leftist group.

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

      Perhaps someone at city hall can read the 1d chess board and realize that someone's going to want to fly an ISIS flag... or worse, something that insults ISIS.

      1. creech   4 years ago

        AnCaps ready to fly the black flag with the gold dollar sign?

  59. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

    • The Trans Youth Project tracked 317 American and Canadian children who socially transitioned genders between ages 3 and 12 years old. "The vast majority of the group still identified with their new gender five years later,"

    If there's a group I fully expect to report honestly about the experiences of Trans Youth, it's the Trans Youth Project.

    Aside: Has there ever been a more groomer-ific name than The Trans Youth Project? How's the project going? Can I see a list of deliverables on this project? How many youths do you plan to transition on this project? When is it considered complete?

    1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   4 years ago

      Three year olds? What the fuck?

      1. I, Woodchipper   4 years ago

        ^ it's the parents

      2. D-Pizzle   4 years ago

        A transgender toddler is like a vegan cat. We all know who's calling the shots.

  60. Fats of Fury   4 years ago

    Los Angeles police won't reveal information about the officers who killed Jayden Baez last week:

    What happens in Florida stays in Los Angeles.

  61. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

    nd now The Satanic Temple is putting it to the test.

    Anyone wanna lay down odds on there being an aspy libertarian with a ponytail involved here?

    1. American Mongrel   4 years ago

      -300000

  62. I, Woodchipper   4 years ago

    This thread expresses my exasperation with libs who say "The system isn't working for us, we have to tear down the system", or "Institutionalism is dead", or "We have to actually exercise power", etc.

    the revolutionaries are always the same.

    And the first round revolutionaries always get put up against the wall once the truly evil machiavelians seize control of the party, so be careful what you wish for, revolutionaries.

  63. Ali Akbar Alexander   4 years ago

    Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) said he was just "acting foolish, and joking" with "a friend" in response to a video he characterized as the latest hit piece meant to destroy his political career.

    The 26-year-old congressman, who has been ensnared in a string of controversies in recent weeks, released a statement Wednesday appearing to confirm the authenticity of a short clip showing him naked in bed atop another man, getting physical and making noises.

    You see? That’s why this particular gay and Black man votes for the GOP. It’s so transgressive. And fun! While Democrats like Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer actually concentrate on knowing exactly where the money is going in the budget, Republicans are concentrating on shooting up the Capitol and face fucking their “friends” That’s the GOP I’m GOP Proud about. I can’t wait until January 2023 when the GOP takes over the House because, really, there’s so much luv there.

    1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

      Poor Shrike.
      Resorting to gay bashing over revenge porn.

  64. I, Woodchipper   4 years ago

    The Federal Reserve will raise interest rates by 0.5 percent—"the most aggressive increase made in a single meeting since May 2000,"

    End the fed.

    it's eerie how Ron Paul has turned out to be right about literally everything.

  65. I, Woodchipper   4 years ago

    More companies are pledging to protect employees' abortion access.

    translation: it's cheaper to fly you to New York for a quick abortie than to give you 3 months of parental leave.

    1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

      Until they realize that the birthing persons are getting pregnant once a year for the free shopping trip.

  66. NoVaNick   4 years ago

    I bet these Satanic Temple people still dutifully wear their masks and worship Fauci.

  67. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

    Boston would have flown the Jewish flag, but they're currently boycotting that religion.

  68. NoVaNick   4 years ago

    The only flag flying in Boston should be a middle finger with “Fuck New Yahk” written underneath

    1. Moonrocks   4 years ago

      Isn't that just New York's flag?

  69. Weigel's Cock Ring   4 years ago

    Still no sign to be seen lately of Dipshit Dave Weigel to talk about great the markets are doing. Gee, I wonder why?

    1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

      He's off counting drilling rigs.

      1. R Mac   4 years ago

        Chewin tobaccy overdose?

  70. Wearenotperfect   4 years ago

    Should the city have to allow a Satanic flag to fly there, too?

    Hell yes!

  71. d   4 years ago

    Thanks for your beyond belief blogs stuff. looking for a Accountant In St Neots ? Check out this!

  72. Lucas   4 years ago

    Can't believe this. Thanks for bringing this to light.

  73. Ariehtpu   4 years ago

    Why would someone even repeat this? That's the only reason 'satanists' exist, as a form of rebellion and attention seeking. Nm that the entire concept of 'satanism' is contingent upon the existence of, and as a counter to Christianity and it's a claim made by depressed 14 year old children of Christian parents and adult virgins who think that it has shock value and that's all.

    1. BlackCat13th   4 years ago

      Not quite. They're actually a bunch of athiests. They dont nelieve any of that hokus pokus sht. Truth is that catholics are just pure evil already that any antagonist to their story seems more like a pretty good guy. Thusly they get trapped in an antilogic contrarian pit that similarly feeds mindlessness as any catholic ignorance might.

      Im in the philippines currently. Its a cesspool of catholic backwardism that seems doomed for the same social desolation western culture exhibits and from a point where it's already a depraved cesspool. They typically resent white people. They were cruely subjugated by the spanish and then again by the americans and the again by the japanese. And they're all quite completely clueless the spanish were the catholic army. Often there is catholic propoganda against white people. I think its cool theyre being supportive of philippine principles and cultural standards but theyre simultaniously supporting their own enemy in that same regard. When you take an aboreal nation and build it up with modern convienience you destroy motivation. If you just hand someone everything they ever sought in life they imedietly become satisfied and trapped in a man on the moon syndrome. It's actually a really horrible thing to hand someone everything they ever wanted. Spoiled, and still living in a cesspool.

      There's two ways to cultivate evil, the most effective one is to train them to be "good." They'll allways then have an itch to be "bad."

      By excluding people from a non-circular definition of good and bad, you cause subjectivist induced agnosia. Psycopathy.

    2. BlackCat13th   4 years ago

      It wasnst actually just some blather about "shock value." Thats just what anton's lesser subordinates banter about now and then. Particularly slayer. No one really knows it but anton wrote seasons in the abyss for them. Yeah it seems a little mellow dramatic now but there were some really good songs on it slayer's never been able to improve upon. Truth is, god hates catholics. I can see why.

      Layvians are only partly catholic.

      I met antons talking lion in the basement of chino ~aug 1998.

  74. BlackCat13th   4 years ago

    Do lavians really think this is neccessary? Yaknow, besides all the hard evidence america is run by the scummiest crime networks in human history do we really need to sign endorsment of some hokus pokus cloud fgt spirit's antagonist?

    I mean we're literally, not figurativly, a nation that censored and covered up a politically connected catholic crime family running an afghan pederast heroin cartel(incedently better than they ever ran a south american catholic pederast heroin cartel) who is responsable for a higher global kill count than the afghan and iraq wars combined that total 5,000,001 by british estimates. jHoe's obidens dope is the leading cause of death, period. Beating out old age entirly as a cause of death beats out hitler, hands down.

    And at tge same time as all that ypu wanna feed slime like that by waving around some kind of stupid sht like a satan flag? I mean, seriously. Fail satan....

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Reform Wins Big in British Local Elections, Reshaping the U.K. Right

Reem Ibrahim | 5.8.2026 7:00 PM

A Venezuelan Mother's Desperate Search for Her Dead Son Is Representative of Ongoing Human Rights Violations

César Báez | 5.8.2026 5:00 PM

Secret ICE Memo Tells Local Police Not To Disclose Immigration Enforcement Info Without ICE's Permission

Autumn Billings | 5.8.2026 4:40 PM

D.C. Circuit Seems Disinclined To Let Pete Hegseth Punish a Senator for His Speech

Jacob Sullum | 5.8.2026 2:00 PM

California Spent $450 Million on a Failed 911 System. Now, the State Is Restarting the Project.

Meagan O'Rourke | 5.8.2026 12:00 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2026 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

I WANT FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS!

Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.

Make a donation today! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks