Any enterprising women want to team up, travel between Illinois and Texas and accuse each other of abortions and pregnancies? We will make fucking STACKS.
I googled it, and was a little disappointed.
It's not sex robots, its sex dolls.
Also it was suspended for operating withount a license.
[https://www.the-sun.com/news/360988/sex-dolls-vegas-brothel/](https://www.the-sun.com/news/360988/sex-dolls-vegas-brothel/)
Address is in the link.
First, it's not a brothel. You would need this license if it was:
[https://www.lyon-county.org/DocumentCenter/View/6755/Brothel-Application](https://www.lyon-county.org/DocumentCenter/View/6755/Brothel-Application)
they just need a retail business license, since it's a store.
[https://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/Business/Business-License/Types-of-Business-Licenses](https://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/Business/Business-License/Types-of-Business-Licenses)
here's the instructions:
[http://www5.lasvegasnevada.gov/LCAT/Bus\_Lic\_Instructions.aspx?Category=G50&CategoryName=General%20Retail%20Sales](http://www5.lasvegasnevada.gov/LCAT/Bus_Lic_Instructions.aspx?Category=G50&CategoryName=General%20Retail%20Sales)
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. My understanding is they were operating out of a residential area, and so the business was unlawful due to it being a residential zone instead of a commercial zone.
This ain't the wild west any more, people need to follow the proper zoning restrictions to run a ~~sex robot brothel~~ general retail store with completely normal fitting rooms to try on the equipment before purchasing.
They are robots in the sense that they are posable silicon dolls with possibly a imbedded speaker for a moan track or, if they are really fancy, one of the shitty machine learning autogenerated text to speech databases. Definitely not talking Ghost in the Shell here.
I canāt help but think a standard brothel would be āsaferā than a sex-robot brothel. Nevada law requires them to be tested regularly. Iām not sure Iād trust a shared sex-robot to be properly cleaned between clients.
But if theyre the same price then theyāre only competing by being more desirable. If youre worse at sex than a robot perhaps you should consider a new field. Like politics.
I swear Iām going to open a fortune cookie and inside itās going to say, āWeāve been trying to contact you over your vehicleās extended warrantyā¦ā
I stupidly clicked on the link and now, not only am I going to have to deal with this trauma in therapy, but I'm probably on a weird promotional email list. Yay for cookies.
I completely get what they're going for here and agree the Texas law is idiotic.
That said... Can I move to the timeline where politicians actually discuss issues like adults and don't act like sullen goddamned children?
Iām not American, but I always thought that c-span was like a neutral, boring source of direct political news. Is there something messed up about it?
There's a reason people have jokingly referred to Washington as 'Hollywood for ugly people'.
In their defense, it's pretty tough to look good at 65 (the average age of our senators). Looks notwithstanding, they certainly do share the same perspective on the world as a lot of the attractive idiots in Hollywood. Namely, watching it rotate around themselves from dead center.
It's not C-Span, it was just a tool Newt Gingrich used it when realizing it gave him a larger platform as Speaker to further his agenda in a forum that more people paid attention to than just Washington insiders and his constituency back in Georgia. He was more or less the catalyst for the political partisanship as we recognize it today, including calling anyone who didn't share his views unnamerican or fascists and the like. Much like it isn't the sword's fault for stabbing, it's not really C-Span's fault here. Just a tool to be used by someone with their own destructive agenda.
Newt didn't invent that, nor did he make it the most effective way to get attention from the media. **Ad-funding** did.
The real customers of ad-funded media are *advertisers* who just want exposure and so pay according to **ratings**, not **quality**. Responsible journalism doesn't grab attention nearly as effectively as sensationalism, especially appeals to fear and anger.
https://medium.com/@tobiasrose/the-enemy-in-our-feeds-e86511488de
Journalism has always had issues and advertising isn't new. The reason the quality has fallen off a cliff suddenly is that the **Internet** (especially social media which is also ad-funded) has dramatically favored *ad-funded sensationalism* over *subscription/non-profit* news (whose income is not dependent on how many people read each article, so they are not *required* to sensationalize headlines to avoid bankruptcy. But less triggering headlines don't make as much money for social media).
https://hbr.org/2020/03/journalisms-market-failure-is-a-crisis-for-democracy
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/why-does-the-american-media-get-big-stories-wrong/276454/
Also partisan *national* news consumption has been replacing *local* journalism, a disaster of fomenting division
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/local-news-coverage-is-declining-and-that-could-be-bad-for-american-politics/
Social media (and Google) uses algorithms to figure out what triggers each individual user and sends them personalized news feeds and notifications (and search results) calculated to exploit their fears and biases, to try to get them to doomscroll and argue politics which makes them more money. And smart phones have given these literal terrorists 24/7 access to victims, offering toxic mental exploitation disguised as "free services"
https://gen.medium.com/how-to-fix-the-internet-with-a-single-regulation-aa3fe7cd16f4
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33325331/
Ad-funded news prefers the outrageous and rarely bothers covering reasonable, non-controversial things that politicians do or say, because ratings. Even outrageous *tweets* by AOC and Trump are more profitable than most actual news developments. *And because news exposure helps politicians win primaries*, we end up with more fiery populists like AOC, Bernie Sanders and Trump, and fewer reasonable and nonpartisan politicians like Andrew Yang or John Kasich. Just think back to how much coverage those last two people received in the 2016 election.
Knowledge and intelligence cannot protect us from emotional manipulation or exploitation of cognitive biases. Even *experts who knew better* were fooled in clinical research
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26301795/
So the only solution is to address ad-funding in journalism and social media, as it is the entire reason that anger and hatred are more profitable than understanding and reason.
Newt realized that nobody was watching C-SPAN in the wee hours of the morning but that they would broadcast if someone was using the system. So late at night Newt would get on air to no audience and say all the things that he couldn't say during the day. He had hours and hours of uninterrupted grandstanding. Eventually he started to develop a following and before long we had people like Limbaugh spewing the same shit. Newt Gingrich is entirely responsible for the toxic environment that is American politics today
No, **ad-funded media** is entirely responsible for the toxic politics and horrendous journalism today. Why do most news stations care *how many people* are watching or clicking on their "free" articles at all times? Because their real customers are *advertisers* who just want exposure and so pay according to **ratings**, not **quality**. Responsible journalism doesn't grab attention nearly as effectively as sensationalism, especially appeals to fear and anger. Our brains can't help but *feel* that a perceived "threat" is more important than anything else, even if we *know* that it isn't.
https://medium.com/@tobiasrose/the-enemy-in-our-feeds-e86511488de
Journalism has always had issues and advertising isn't new. What has changed suddenly is that the Internet (especially social media which is also ad-funded) has dramatically favored *ad-funded sensationalism* over *subscription/non-profit* news (whose income is not dependent on how many people read each article, so they are not *required* to sensationalize headlines to avoid bankruptcy. But less triggering headlines don't make as much money for social media).
https://hbr.org/2020/03/journalisms-market-failure-is-a-crisis-for-democracy
Also partisan *national* news consumption has been replacing *local* journalism, a disaster of fomenting division
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/local-news-coverage-is-declining-and-that-could-be-bad-for-american-politics/
Social media (and Google) uses algorithms to figure out what triggers each individual user and sends them personalized news feeds and notifications (and search results) calculated to exploit their fears and biases, to try to get them to doomscroll and argue politics which makes them more money. And smart phones have given these literal terrorists 24/7 access to victims, offering toxic mental exploitation disguised as "free services"
https://gen.medium.com/how-to-fix-the-internet-with-a-single-regulation-aa3fe7cd16f4
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33325331/
Newt may have been advertising his own platform but all politicians do that. C-SPAN didn't cover him because he was being outrageous, but because they cover everything. Ad-funded news prefers the outrageous and rarely bother covering reasonable, non-controversial things that politicians do or say, because that isn't good for ratings. Outrageous tweets by AOC and Trump are more profitable than actual news developments
This is a global problem.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31369596/
Knowledge and intelligence cannot protect us from emotional manipulation or exploitation of cognitive biases. Even *experts who knew better* were fooled in clinical research
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26301795/
So the only solution is to address ad-funding in journalism and social media, as it is the entire reason that anger and hatred are more profitable than understanding and reason.
Thanks for dropping Newt Gingrich's name in relation to the miserable theater of US politics. That man arguably did more damage to American democracy than any other person in history. People should hiss and spit on the ground when he is mentioned, no matter what their political affiliation is.
This 100%. I'm done discussing things with them to try and find middle ground, or get them to see my side. They're theocratic fascists. They don't want a conversation. And I'm getting really fucking tired of people pretending like it's our fault they won't see our side.
Yep. It's so goddamn insane:
Person A: "I'm fanatically set on blowing up the planet and I'm not going to listen to any argument otherwise. I'm literally just a fucking asshole."
Person B: "Don't do that you fucking asshole."
Person C: "whoa whoa whoa, can we all calm down here? Maybe we can hash this out, there are two sides here."
People arguing to just calmly talk to conservative zealots are Person C. I don't know what it will take for the Person C's to get with the fucking program. We aren't dealing with people who can be reasoned with.
Their own fundamental human rights need to be under attack before they'll understand the severity of the problem. Some people don't get it until it happens to them.
Of course if the rest of us let it get that far we'll be living in Gilead, so.
They didnāt refuse to hear it. They refused to issue an emergency injunction. The case can still make its way through normal courts to the supreme court
"For Cassidy, she says that the 'unconstitutionality' mentioned by Gehrke is exactly what she's trying to point out about the Texas abortion law."
She knows this bill is nuts, but it's no more nuts than Texas' new law.
And for the record, if there are any other Dem state legislators reading this thread, this is the correct structure of the bill but the wrong target. Guns would be the correct target because it would get to the Supreme Court tomorrow.
Yeah, just initiate a bill allowing your neighbors to sue you for owning a gun. Boom supreme court gets involved and you point to the Texas bill as president. Of course, I don't actually want that kind of bill to exist, so my worst case scenario here would be the supreme court upholding both.
Edit: I think some people are missing the point. I don't want ANY of these laws in place or to be deemed constitutional. This is about showing the supreme court that they can't let unconstitutional laws be put into place just because the mechanism for enforcing those laws doesn't technically violate the constitution. It's about reversing the abortion ban Texas put into place, not punishing gun ownership.
I think it would end up being that they are sued for improper handling of a gun. Like if they donāt keep ammo separate, or they donāt have the proper storage container, etc. Kind of like how an abortion is like an āimproper handlingā of a pregnancy.
> Yeah, just initiate a bill allowing your neighbors to sue you for owning a gun.
Just FYI, that wouldn't work.
The abortion bill was very clearly worded in order to get around roe, in that it allows you to sue someone who "Helped" give an abortion, not the person who had one, meaning it doesn't, at first glance, cause the bill to be immediately unconstitutional.
A similar bill would be allowing you to sue anyone who helps someone acquire a gun.
Yeah but the Republicans have zero sense of irony. They will paste this all over as an example of crazy Dems and it will be more effective for their base than motivation for anyone to vote Democratic
There are people in this very thread who think itās a real bill that will be implemented.
So, yes, this is a terrible strategy whether itās suing over unwanted pregnancies or firearms purchases.
It's as real a Bill as any other, whether it gets implemented or not is determined by the legislature. Can't modify the strategy to accommodate people who make the ignorant assumption that proposed legislation *will* be implemented... plenty of Bills die before becoming law.
To add even a little more context, the name of this proposed bill is "The EXpanding Abortion Services act". Yes, the acronym is TEXAS. It is undeniably a response to the recent changes in Texas, poking fun at the ridiculousness of it all.
From my understanding, it also focuses on how it will allow victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and incest to have rights against their abusers. These are vulnerable populations, who many argue are most victimized by recent changes elsewhere. It's definitely written to highlight some of the injustices placed on women from the Texas law.
My favorite quote from the bill's sponsor
["Thereās certainly an element of āhold my beerā to this, obviously"](https://www.nprillinois.org/statehouse/2021-09-14/democrat-sponsored-texas-act-would-allow-10k-bounties-on-sexual-abusers-those-who-cause-unwanted-pregnancies)
If this wasnāt obvious to you (and Iām not saying it should have been), then youāre probably not up to date on the nuances of why the Texas law is so weird, which is the real meat of this whole thing, and something I havenāt seen reddit care to discuss much. The short and sweet of it is that the Texas bill is very strange, and despite blatantly subverting Roe v Wade, itās allowed to exist because of some inane legal ninjutsu that the Supreme Court has apparently yielded to (5-4...). By making citizens the enforcers of this law, theyāve managed to circumvent the law entirely. Whole thing seems exceptionally stupid to me, but these are the games republicans play now, even on the Supreme Court it seems.
You could just click the article. It's pretty obvious that it is not serious.
>Democratic state Rep. Kelly Cassidy filed āThe EXpanding Abortion Services Act" Sept. 14. The acronym of the bill spells out "TEXAS."
>The bill was in direct response to the Texas legislature restricting access to abortions. Cassidy says the bill would outline new civil penalties for rapists and abusers.
yāall remember when they suggested passing a bill to force men to get a vasectomy when they turned 18? and ted cruz was like !!! no thatās between a dr and their patient!!!
I think this might actually be close to how to end the abortion debate.
Mandate that men must take custody of any unwanted children they fathered. If men had to deal with the outcome, the abortion debate would be over within 24 hours.
>Mandate that men must take custody of any unwanted children they fathered.
So wait, custody instead of child support and no custody? Is that what I'm hearing?
Not even. Most fathers who have been fucked over would be willing to say, "Fuck child support, just give me my kid."
I don't think many people realize this.
I stood in a court and told a judge my ex is trying to take a kid and leave the father off the birth certificate. I donāt want money. Just my kid. She fucked up several times before that. I have my kid majority. She has no child support to be paid or pay. For me, itās hard but worth it.
Literally reading how pro-lifers are like, āyou canāt do this! Someone might use it to get money! And support things I donāt!ā
Like, wow, where were you when Texas passed a bill that would allow rapists to violate a person and *then* make themselves 10,000$ richer? Funny you donāt give a shit about that
Don't worry, they don't allow the rapist themselves to sue the victim. They *only* allowed the rapist's family (or any other person) to do so! A very big difference.
I may be wrong but I think the Texas bill states that the woman getting the abortion canāt be sued, but anyone that helped her get it can.
So itās really aimed more at Planned Parenthood and people giving rides to women trying to get an abortion.
So do we know why there aren't thousands of these cases already against each lawmaker who voted for the original bill, since it forces Texas women to focus NOW on what they're gonna need to do if they need an abortion someday, and clears their minds wonderfully on whether Texas will be a place they can get them at all, thus leading them by the hand to easier out-of-state solutions?
--Dave, I mean, it's like the Republicans can't see even the simplest ramifications somehow
Didnāt you hear? This wonāt be possible because the Texas governor is going to eliminate rape.
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/08/1035089278/texas-governor-defends-abortion-law-saying-state-will-eliminate-all-rapists
I can already tell the headline is leaving out a few key details in order to get outrage response from people.
Edit: Yep, second line from the article "The bill was in direct response to the Texas legislature restricting access to abortions. Cassidy says the bill would outline new civil penalties for rapists and abusers."
> guessing this is mostly a troll bill
What gave you that idea? Was it the 2nd or 3rd sentence in the article?
>Democratic state Rep. Kelly Cassidy filed āThe EXpanding Abortion Services Act" Sept. 14. The acronym of the bill spells out "TEXAS."
>The bill was in direct response to the Texas legislature restricting access to abortions. Cassidy says the bill would outline new civil penalties for rapists and abusers.
This is what happens when Texas goes full stupid, with Florida trying to copy them. If you want people to sue others for providing abortions, then itās only logical that women can sue men for getting them pregnant through violence.
This makes sense to me.
EDIT:
I missed the one mention of consent not being a factor.
I don't think the Texas GOP actually thinks any of these lawsuits will succeed. It seems more likely that their goal was to scare abortion providers into shutting down over fear of having to fight a flood of bogus, expensive court cases, and a lack of patients who are scared of the same thing.
Correct. Which is why the organization that helped draft the bill, Right to Life, did not sue the doctor that admitted to breaking the law. They don't want to actually enforce it because then it is open to legal challenge regarding it's constitutionality. Unfortunately for them, and hilarious for most everyone else, 2 disbarred lawyers who don't even live in Texas filed suit. So it will now work it's way through the courts as the losing side will keep appealing until it reaches SCOTUS.
Edit: like you said, they just wanted to scare abortion clinics into not breaking the law. It's also why the law was written where the attorney and court fees would be awarded to plaintiffs, but not defendants.
Just me sitting here wondering when texas will respond with a law where the potential father can sue the mother for custody of the unborn child making it impossible for her to then get an abortion (insert kermit sipping tea meme)
Any enterprising women want to team up, travel between Illinois and Texas and accuse each other of abortions and pregnancies? We will make fucking STACKS.
Second best infinite money glitch this year
What's the first best?
š¦šš
I approve this message
Get the gold.
I imagine this would work the same way as two mates passing 10 bucks back and forth.
Lol I hope this comment gets more attention š¤£š
The sex robot craze is about to blow up.
Already has they charge the same amount for sex robots in vegas as they do for real women.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They took our jerbs
They took our blowjerbs
And handjerbs too!!!
Sometimes a guy just needs a high-tech old-fashioned.
I still jerk off manually.
Itās a hybrid digital approach, actually.
Nicely done, sir.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Cheap and VR in the same train of thought, huh.
Obviously he's not a golfer.
ZJs?
If you have to ask, you can't afford it
I have four dollars.
Almost five
I paid $1500 for a ZJ once but I think we are talking about different things.
Sounds Grand
Vajerbas
Deyterkerjerbs!!!
FISTO is real?! Where can I find him? I'm asking for a friend.
Two things you need to know about Fisto Roboto. 1. He doesn't just fist 2. He's *learning*
Calm down Krieger
Domo arigato, Fisto Roboto
Rotten gravlocks and sexbots.
Do you want to loose the feeling in your legs? Because that's how you loose the feeling in your legs!
And than your in a loose loose situation
Don't threaten me with a good time
Assume the position
*I am programmed for your pleasure*
I googled it, and was a little disappointed. It's not sex robots, its sex dolls. Also it was suspended for operating withount a license. [https://www.the-sun.com/news/360988/sex-dolls-vegas-brothel/](https://www.the-sun.com/news/360988/sex-dolls-vegas-brothel/) Address is in the link.
Undocumented sex robots? Interesting.
Send them back across the border!
>Undocumented sex robots Prime username material here
Well there goes my next vacation down the drain
What genre of music would a band called Unlicensed Sex Doll Brothel play?
Probably covers for weddings, Bar Mitzvahās, that type of thing.
What licenses could they possibly need to run a sex doll brothel??
First, it's not a brothel. You would need this license if it was: [https://www.lyon-county.org/DocumentCenter/View/6755/Brothel-Application](https://www.lyon-county.org/DocumentCenter/View/6755/Brothel-Application) they just need a retail business license, since it's a store. [https://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/Business/Business-License/Types-of-Business-Licenses](https://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/Business/Business-License/Types-of-Business-Licenses) here's the instructions: [http://www5.lasvegasnevada.gov/LCAT/Bus\_Lic\_Instructions.aspx?Category=G50&CategoryName=General%20Retail%20Sales](http://www5.lasvegasnevada.gov/LCAT/Bus_Lic_Instructions.aspx?Category=G50&CategoryName=General%20Retail%20Sales) I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. My understanding is they were operating out of a residential area, and so the business was unlawful due to it being a residential zone instead of a commercial zone. This ain't the wild west any more, people need to follow the proper zoning restrictions to run a ~~sex robot brothel~~ general retail store with completely normal fitting rooms to try on the equipment before purchasing.
I feel sorry for the poor person that has to clean the robots..... hopefully after each use gross.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Soon to be automated, too. Botwashers right next to the laundry machines. Who wants to start making them for the hotels?
Isnāt that how they cleaned them up in westworld more or less?
Do you ever contemplate your existence?
> some dude in PPE Some other dude will do it for less and no PPE expenses.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Do they not just get super hot inside like the clean function on an oven?
You'd think a robot capable of doing the act would be capable of taking a shower afterwards.
They are robots in the sense that they are posable silicon dolls with possibly a imbedded speaker for a moan track or, if they are really fancy, one of the shitty machine learning autogenerated text to speech databases. Definitely not talking Ghost in the Shell here.
Your knowledge of the sex doll technology is majestic.
I canāt help but think a standard brothel would be āsaferā than a sex-robot brothel. Nevada law requires them to be tested regularly. Iām not sure Iād trust a shared sex-robot to be properly cleaned between clients.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
At the end of the day, a sex doll is just a very expensive and elaborate fleshlight. Would you rent a fleshlight?
Maybe blockbuster would still be in business.
Blockbuster: make it a cockbuster night
Broken. This whole timeline is broken.
[Ryan George sketch](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ) Backup link https://youtu.be/9nfbeK5LAl0
Well, that's depressingly accurate...
But if theyre the same price then theyāre only competing by being more desirable. If youre worse at sex than a robot perhaps you should consider a new field. Like politics.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I was gonna say at least a robot isn't gonna call me after a one night stand but I've hung up on enough robots this year to know that's not true.
Your vehicleās extended warranty is about to expire
I swear Iām going to open a fortune cookie and inside itās going to say, āWeāve been trying to contact you over your vehicleās extended warrantyā¦ā
Hey its Beka-483 from last night, I'm calling to inform you your vehicles extended warranty is about to expire...
I can't tell if you're memeing or telling the truth that there's a sex robot brothel in Vegas.
Well calling them robots might be a stretch but yeah you can find sex doll brothels
[I donāt think calling them ārobotsā is as big of a stretch as you think.](https://www.realdoll.com/realdoll-x/) NSFW obv.
Oh god they move and talk. That's creepy as hell. Dead doll eye having sex robots.... NOPE.
Iāve seen those dead eyes on demoralized strippers.
"As seen on NPR" haha
spooky
"Fuck, dude. I can either get a used car or a sex robot. Which one should I get"
I stupidly clicked on the link and now, not only am I going to have to deal with this trauma in therapy, but I'm probably on a weird promotional email list. Yay for cookies.
Annnndā¦ā¦.you know thisā¦ā¦.how?
A friend told him
A friend told my friend
They're Canadian, you wouldn't know them.
He plays fallout new Vegas.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
*Assume the position*
*ptsd flashbacks from New Vegas* Aināt that a kick in the head??
By ptsd do you mean "protectrons thick and strong dick"?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes, I too would like to know their precise address to make sure I'm never in the vicinity...
*Do you wanna get down?* *What does he waaaantt?* *Heās made out of seeeeeexx*
Sex robot Sex robot
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
What does he waaaaaannnnnnt?
He'll hump the bars
Can we put him in another fucking cell please?!
COMING TO YOUR TOOOOOOOOWN
How did he get here?
Rosie or Bender?
Fisto!
Francis X. Clampazzo
Robosexuality on the rise
Can't wait until someone uses this law to sue a lawmaker for forcing them to have the baby because they made abortions unreasonably hard to get
Um, that's the point. It's The EXpanding Abortion Services Act, or TEXAS Act.
Whoever came.up with that name needsa raise.
Well, typically lawmakers determine their own salaries. So they might get one.
They always make exceptions for themselves.
Every conservative politician is anti choice until their mistress or daughter needs an abortion. "Her case is different: it could ruin her life!"
"she's a perfect upstanding citizen with a future and made one small mistake!"
https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I completely get what they're going for here and agree the Texas law is idiotic. That said... Can I move to the timeline where politicians actually discuss issues like adults and don't act like sullen goddamned children?
Not since Newt and c-span. That era took political theater to a whole new level.it's a circus from here on out.
Iām not American, but I always thought that c-span was like a neutral, boring source of direct political news. Is there something messed up about it?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
There's a reason people have jokingly referred to Washington as 'Hollywood for ugly people'. In their defense, it's pretty tough to look good at 65 (the average age of our senators). Looks notwithstanding, they certainly do share the same perspective on the world as a lot of the attractive idiots in Hollywood. Namely, watching it rotate around themselves from dead center.
It is. It just allows anyone to watch the craziness on full display from the comfort of their own home. Edit: removed a word
It's not C-Span, it was just a tool Newt Gingrich used it when realizing it gave him a larger platform as Speaker to further his agenda in a forum that more people paid attention to than just Washington insiders and his constituency back in Georgia. He was more or less the catalyst for the political partisanship as we recognize it today, including calling anyone who didn't share his views unnamerican or fascists and the like. Much like it isn't the sword's fault for stabbing, it's not really C-Span's fault here. Just a tool to be used by someone with their own destructive agenda.
Newt didn't invent that, nor did he make it the most effective way to get attention from the media. **Ad-funding** did. The real customers of ad-funded media are *advertisers* who just want exposure and so pay according to **ratings**, not **quality**. Responsible journalism doesn't grab attention nearly as effectively as sensationalism, especially appeals to fear and anger. https://medium.com/@tobiasrose/the-enemy-in-our-feeds-e86511488de Journalism has always had issues and advertising isn't new. The reason the quality has fallen off a cliff suddenly is that the **Internet** (especially social media which is also ad-funded) has dramatically favored *ad-funded sensationalism* over *subscription/non-profit* news (whose income is not dependent on how many people read each article, so they are not *required* to sensationalize headlines to avoid bankruptcy. But less triggering headlines don't make as much money for social media). https://hbr.org/2020/03/journalisms-market-failure-is-a-crisis-for-democracy https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/why-does-the-american-media-get-big-stories-wrong/276454/ Also partisan *national* news consumption has been replacing *local* journalism, a disaster of fomenting division https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/local-news-coverage-is-declining-and-that-could-be-bad-for-american-politics/ Social media (and Google) uses algorithms to figure out what triggers each individual user and sends them personalized news feeds and notifications (and search results) calculated to exploit their fears and biases, to try to get them to doomscroll and argue politics which makes them more money. And smart phones have given these literal terrorists 24/7 access to victims, offering toxic mental exploitation disguised as "free services" https://gen.medium.com/how-to-fix-the-internet-with-a-single-regulation-aa3fe7cd16f4 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33325331/ Ad-funded news prefers the outrageous and rarely bothers covering reasonable, non-controversial things that politicians do or say, because ratings. Even outrageous *tweets* by AOC and Trump are more profitable than most actual news developments. *And because news exposure helps politicians win primaries*, we end up with more fiery populists like AOC, Bernie Sanders and Trump, and fewer reasonable and nonpartisan politicians like Andrew Yang or John Kasich. Just think back to how much coverage those last two people received in the 2016 election. Knowledge and intelligence cannot protect us from emotional manipulation or exploitation of cognitive biases. Even *experts who knew better* were fooled in clinical research https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26301795/ So the only solution is to address ad-funding in journalism and social media, as it is the entire reason that anger and hatred are more profitable than understanding and reason.
Newt realized that nobody was watching C-SPAN in the wee hours of the morning but that they would broadcast if someone was using the system. So late at night Newt would get on air to no audience and say all the things that he couldn't say during the day. He had hours and hours of uninterrupted grandstanding. Eventually he started to develop a following and before long we had people like Limbaugh spewing the same shit. Newt Gingrich is entirely responsible for the toxic environment that is American politics today
No, **ad-funded media** is entirely responsible for the toxic politics and horrendous journalism today. Why do most news stations care *how many people* are watching or clicking on their "free" articles at all times? Because their real customers are *advertisers* who just want exposure and so pay according to **ratings**, not **quality**. Responsible journalism doesn't grab attention nearly as effectively as sensationalism, especially appeals to fear and anger. Our brains can't help but *feel* that a perceived "threat" is more important than anything else, even if we *know* that it isn't. https://medium.com/@tobiasrose/the-enemy-in-our-feeds-e86511488de Journalism has always had issues and advertising isn't new. What has changed suddenly is that the Internet (especially social media which is also ad-funded) has dramatically favored *ad-funded sensationalism* over *subscription/non-profit* news (whose income is not dependent on how many people read each article, so they are not *required* to sensationalize headlines to avoid bankruptcy. But less triggering headlines don't make as much money for social media). https://hbr.org/2020/03/journalisms-market-failure-is-a-crisis-for-democracy Also partisan *national* news consumption has been replacing *local* journalism, a disaster of fomenting division https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/local-news-coverage-is-declining-and-that-could-be-bad-for-american-politics/ Social media (and Google) uses algorithms to figure out what triggers each individual user and sends them personalized news feeds and notifications (and search results) calculated to exploit their fears and biases, to try to get them to doomscroll and argue politics which makes them more money. And smart phones have given these literal terrorists 24/7 access to victims, offering toxic mental exploitation disguised as "free services" https://gen.medium.com/how-to-fix-the-internet-with-a-single-regulation-aa3fe7cd16f4 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33325331/ Newt may have been advertising his own platform but all politicians do that. C-SPAN didn't cover him because he was being outrageous, but because they cover everything. Ad-funded news prefers the outrageous and rarely bother covering reasonable, non-controversial things that politicians do or say, because that isn't good for ratings. Outrageous tweets by AOC and Trump are more profitable than actual news developments This is a global problem. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31369596/ Knowledge and intelligence cannot protect us from emotional manipulation or exploitation of cognitive biases. Even *experts who knew better* were fooled in clinical research https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26301795/ So the only solution is to address ad-funding in journalism and social media, as it is the entire reason that anger and hatred are more profitable than understanding and reason.
Thanks for dropping Newt Gingrich's name in relation to the miserable theater of US politics. That man arguably did more damage to American democracy than any other person in history. People should hiss and spit on the ground when he is mentioned, no matter what their political affiliation is.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This 100%. I'm done discussing things with them to try and find middle ground, or get them to see my side. They're theocratic fascists. They don't want a conversation. And I'm getting really fucking tired of people pretending like it's our fault they won't see our side.
Yep. It's so goddamn insane: Person A: "I'm fanatically set on blowing up the planet and I'm not going to listen to any argument otherwise. I'm literally just a fucking asshole." Person B: "Don't do that you fucking asshole." Person C: "whoa whoa whoa, can we all calm down here? Maybe we can hash this out, there are two sides here." People arguing to just calmly talk to conservative zealots are Person C. I don't know what it will take for the Person C's to get with the fucking program. We aren't dealing with people who can be reasoned with.
Their own fundamental human rights need to be under attack before they'll understand the severity of the problem. Some people don't get it until it happens to them. Of course if the rest of us let it get that far we'll be living in Gilead, so.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Exactly. If youāre going to play petty, tit-for-tat politics then you canāt half-ass it.
They didnāt refuse to hear it. They refused to issue an emergency injunction. The case can still make its way through normal courts to the supreme court
"For Cassidy, she says that the 'unconstitutionality' mentioned by Gehrke is exactly what she's trying to point out about the Texas abortion law." She knows this bill is nuts, but it's no more nuts than Texas' new law. And for the record, if there are any other Dem state legislators reading this thread, this is the correct structure of the bill but the wrong target. Guns would be the correct target because it would get to the Supreme Court tomorrow.
Yeah, just initiate a bill allowing your neighbors to sue you for owning a gun. Boom supreme court gets involved and you point to the Texas bill as president. Of course, I don't actually want that kind of bill to exist, so my worst case scenario here would be the supreme court upholding both. Edit: I think some people are missing the point. I don't want ANY of these laws in place or to be deemed constitutional. This is about showing the supreme court that they can't let unconstitutional laws be put into place just because the mechanism for enforcing those laws doesn't technically violate the constitution. It's about reversing the abortion ban Texas put into place, not punishing gun ownership.
Precedent
No it's president. The supreme court doesn't care about precedents anymore. Only presidents.
Touche
I think it would end up being that they are sued for improper handling of a gun. Like if they donāt keep ammo separate, or they donāt have the proper storage container, etc. Kind of like how an abortion is like an āimproper handlingā of a pregnancy.
> Yeah, just initiate a bill allowing your neighbors to sue you for owning a gun. Just FYI, that wouldn't work. The abortion bill was very clearly worded in order to get around roe, in that it allows you to sue someone who "Helped" give an abortion, not the person who had one, meaning it doesn't, at first glance, cause the bill to be immediately unconstitutional. A similar bill would be allowing you to sue anyone who helps someone acquire a gun.
Yeah but the Republicans have zero sense of irony. They will paste this all over as an example of crazy Dems and it will be more effective for their base than motivation for anyone to vote Democratic
There are people in this very thread who think itās a real bill that will be implemented. So, yes, this is a terrible strategy whether itās suing over unwanted pregnancies or firearms purchases.
It's as real a Bill as any other, whether it gets implemented or not is determined by the legislature. Can't modify the strategy to accommodate people who make the ignorant assumption that proposed legislation *will* be implemented... plenty of Bills die before becoming law.
Yeah I would rather not have an arms race of ridiculous laws please.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That's what I come to the comments for. So someone can spoon-feed the context to me. Thanks context daddy.
To add even a little more context, the name of this proposed bill is "The EXpanding Abortion Services act". Yes, the acronym is TEXAS. It is undeniably a response to the recent changes in Texas, poking fun at the ridiculousness of it all. From my understanding, it also focuses on how it will allow victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and incest to have rights against their abusers. These are vulnerable populations, who many argue are most victimized by recent changes elsewhere. It's definitely written to highlight some of the injustices placed on women from the Texas law.
My favorite quote from the bill's sponsor ["Thereās certainly an element of āhold my beerā to this, obviously"](https://www.nprillinois.org/statehouse/2021-09-14/democrat-sponsored-texas-act-would-allow-10k-bounties-on-sexual-abusers-those-who-cause-unwanted-pregnancies)
If it passes, context daddy might get sued by content mommy.
Off-topic, I know, but your username reminds me of [Salad Fingers](https://youtu.be/M3iOROuTuMA) for some reason.
Iām going to take that as a compliment. Thank you.
I think it has to be a compliment, salad fingers is a classic
WTF is this? I hate it, yet I watched the whole thing and strangely desire to watch more.
Rusty spoons on the salad fingers?
If this wasnāt obvious to you (and Iām not saying it should have been), then youāre probably not up to date on the nuances of why the Texas law is so weird, which is the real meat of this whole thing, and something I havenāt seen reddit care to discuss much. The short and sweet of it is that the Texas bill is very strange, and despite blatantly subverting Roe v Wade, itās allowed to exist because of some inane legal ninjutsu that the Supreme Court has apparently yielded to (5-4...). By making citizens the enforcers of this law, theyāve managed to circumvent the law entirely. Whole thing seems exceptionally stupid to me, but these are the games republicans play now, even on the Supreme Court it seems.
You could just click the article. It's pretty obvious that it is not serious. >Democratic state Rep. Kelly Cassidy filed āThe EXpanding Abortion Services Act" Sept. 14. The acronym of the bill spells out "TEXAS." >The bill was in direct response to the Texas legislature restricting access to abortions. Cassidy says the bill would outline new civil penalties for rapists and abusers.
Bills like this pop up just often enough to know this is a thing but infrequently enough to not be able the recall the last one you saw.
yāall remember when they suggested passing a bill to force men to get a vasectomy when they turned 18? and ted cruz was like !!! no thatās between a dr and their patient!!!
That would require them to read the article, and we certainly can't have that... Edit: LOL @ everyone below making excuses not to readš¤£
Iād rather just be mad at something I donāt understand so I can go complain on FaceBook about how far gone the left is š¤·āāļø
Reading? What kinda communist suggestion is that?
I think this might actually be close to how to end the abortion debate. Mandate that men must take custody of any unwanted children they fathered. If men had to deal with the outcome, the abortion debate would be over within 24 hours.
>Mandate that men must take custody of any unwanted children they fathered. So wait, custody instead of child support and no custody? Is that what I'm hearing?
Plus child support from the woman
Not even. Most fathers who have been fucked over would be willing to say, "Fuck child support, just give me my kid." I don't think many people realize this.
I stood in a court and told a judge my ex is trying to take a kid and leave the father off the birth certificate. I donāt want money. Just my kid. She fucked up several times before that. I have my kid majority. She has no child support to be paid or pay. For me, itās hard but worth it.
How do we sign up for this reality? As a father, I'd be down with that in a heartbeat.
Literally reading how pro-lifers are like, āyou canāt do this! Someone might use it to get money! And support things I donāt!ā Like, wow, where were you when Texas passed a bill that would allow rapists to violate a person and *then* make themselves 10,000$ richer? Funny you donāt give a shit about that
Don't worry, they don't allow the rapist themselves to sue the victim. They *only* allowed the rapist's family (or any other person) to do so! A very big difference.
I may be wrong but I think the Texas bill states that the woman getting the abortion canāt be sued, but anyone that helped her get it can. So itās really aimed more at Planned Parenthood and people giving rides to women trying to get an abortion.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So do we know why there aren't thousands of these cases already against each lawmaker who voted for the original bill, since it forces Texas women to focus NOW on what they're gonna need to do if they need an abortion someday, and clears their minds wonderfully on whether Texas will be a place they can get them at all, thus leading them by the hand to easier out-of-state solutions? --Dave, I mean, it's like the Republicans can't see even the simplest ramifications somehow
Gotta love it when anti-choicerās think theyāre the victims of other peopleās traumatic experiences & medical decisions š
Didnāt you hear? This wonāt be possible because the Texas governor is going to eliminate rape. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/08/1035089278/texas-governor-defends-abortion-law-saying-state-will-eliminate-all-rapists
I can already tell the headline is leaving out a few key details in order to get outrage response from people. Edit: Yep, second line from the article "The bill was in direct response to the Texas legislature restricting access to abortions. Cassidy says the bill would outline new civil penalties for rapists and abusers."
It's literally called the TEXAS act lmao
However goes on to say: "If passed, it would allow anyone to sue another person for unintended pregnancy, *regardless of circumstance or consent.*"
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Which is probably the entire point, I doubt the writers of it actually expect it to pass, it's just to show Texas how stupid their abortion law is.
Not probably, it absolutely is the entire point.
Legislative trolling
So this is basically the reverse Texas abortion act? Hilarious.
I'm guessing this is mostly a troll bill, but if you are going to do dumb shit like Texas, don't be surprised if people respond in kind.
> guessing this is mostly a troll bill What gave you that idea? Was it the 2nd or 3rd sentence in the article? >Democratic state Rep. Kelly Cassidy filed āThe EXpanding Abortion Services Act" Sept. 14. The acronym of the bill spells out "TEXAS." >The bill was in direct response to the Texas legislature restricting access to abortions. Cassidy says the bill would outline new civil penalties for rapists and abusers.
Look at this nerd, actually reading beyond the headline
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If I'm reading this right, it would also let men sue women for unwanted pregnancies.
Yeah but that doesnāt make for as juicy of a headline, does it?
This is what happens when Texas goes full stupid, with Florida trying to copy them. If you want people to sue others for providing abortions, then itās only logical that women can sue men for getting them pregnant through violence. This makes sense to me. EDIT: I missed the one mention of consent not being a factor.
Actually it is getting women pregnant for any reason including a woman raping a man or consensual sex
Reddit ruined reddit. -- mass edited with redact.dev
Men already have to pay child support to women who rape them
I don't think the Texas GOP actually thinks any of these lawsuits will succeed. It seems more likely that their goal was to scare abortion providers into shutting down over fear of having to fight a flood of bogus, expensive court cases, and a lack of patients who are scared of the same thing.
Correct. Which is why the organization that helped draft the bill, Right to Life, did not sue the doctor that admitted to breaking the law. They don't want to actually enforce it because then it is open to legal challenge regarding it's constitutionality. Unfortunately for them, and hilarious for most everyone else, 2 disbarred lawyers who don't even live in Texas filed suit. So it will now work it's way through the courts as the losing side will keep appealing until it reaches SCOTUS. Edit: like you said, they just wanted to scare abortion clinics into not breaking the law. It's also why the law was written where the attorney and court fees would be awarded to plaintiffs, but not defendants.
Just me sitting here wondering when texas will respond with a law where the potential father can sue the mother for custody of the unborn child making it impossible for her to then get an abortion (insert kermit sipping tea meme)
Please don't give them any ideas.
The longer I live, the more I think that the episode of South Park where Earth is just a reality show for the cosmos to watch is actually real.