Kelinci Hutan
08 February 2012 @ 03:01 pm
Dear Every Website That Whines About People Using Ad-Blockers,

Hey. I probably enjoy a service your site provides, and I'm glad that you've found a way to fund it via ads. However, while I might like your site, the ads are third-party content. Put more simply, I don't know where they've been. I don't know, until it's too late, who sponsored them, and I definitely don't know until too late what other functions are associated with those ads.

So, can you promise me that the companies whose ads are on your site won't put cookies on my machine without asking me? Won't track my browsing habits? Won't record any of my information? Won't infect my computer with trojans, spyware, adware, or other malicious software? Even if they only use it to "improve their ads?" Because until you can promise all of that, then my ad-blocker is my first--though not my only--line of defense from giving personal information to people or companies I may not trust and I'm going to continue to use it on every site on the web.

Either you vet the ads you allow on your site for safety or I'll block them for safety. Up to you.

Mood: inscrutable
Kelinci Hutan
30 April 2010 @ 09:09 am
I'm not even going to bother to comment in the latest abortion thread on WGW. Sometimes people just want to be hard-headed, and who am I to stop them?

Oklahoma's congress just overrode a gubernatorial veto on two pro-life bills. One requiring mothers considering abortions to view ultrasounds of their children before they do, and the other... It's going to be hard typing this without keeling over laughing but here goes. Bear in mind however, it's not at all about what WGW is saying it is, but more on that in a minute.

So, the folks on WGW, and pro-abort lobbyists elsewhere are making out like this bill outright says doctors can go ahead and lie to their patients if being honest might encourage them to abort. Now, I would say this claim is outright ridiculous on the face of it, but given that abortion "doctors" can and regularly do lie to their victims about how developed their children are, I suppose I can't be surprised that that's what they're seeing. If it's in their playbook, naturally, they'll expect it to show up in ours.

Now the first question that comes to my mind is, "Did any of the WGWers actually look at the linked article?" Which is this one. Now, A] this is written by a pro-abort. It says so right there in the Editor's Note. "Mary Alice Carr is vice president for communications at the National Institute for Reproductive Health." We're not dealing with an unbiased viewpoint here. But--and this is the biggie, B]it says right in the link that this is an opinion piece! This woman is not reporting news, she's doing an editorial! But in case you miss it in the URL, there's a note down at the bottom. "The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mary Alice Carr." CNN doesn't put that at the bottom of news articles, because those are news and it's the job of CNN as an entity to stand behind their accuracy. Ideally, news articles are not opinions, but facts.

Getting your news from an opinion piece. Fail number one. Moving on we come to...

The next question I had was, "Did any of the WGWers look up the law in question?" I have no idea, but since I did, I'll reveal what I've been sitting on. This law makes it illegal to collect damages in a "wrongful life" or "wrongful birth" suit.

No, really, that's it. You can no longer sue Oklahoma doctors because you have a living child. You could before.

Yurp, the source of all the squawking is a law preventing wrongful life suits, totally unrelated to whether or not you can or can't lie to your patients. Now, because there is occasionally fire at the source of pro-abort smoke, I read through the law in question. So, just to underline what this law is about, Section 1A reads "It is the intent of the Legislature that the birth of a child does not constitute a legally recognizable injury and that it is contrary to public policy to award damages because of the birth of a child or for the rearing of that child."

Now, into the meatier stuff. I am guessing that the source of the kerfluffle is Section 1C (there's only three sections, and two and three are only one paragraph each) which reads "In a wrongful life action or a wrongful birth action, no damages may be recovered for any condition that existed at the time of a child’s birth if the claim is that the defendant’s act or omission contributed to the mother’s not having obtained an abortion." So, while it doesn't say that the doctor may lie to a woman, it does say she can't sue him if he left something out and she didn't have an abortion as a result. Which would be tricky to prove anyway, but that's something else again. So that looks pretty bad unless you read Section 1D: "This section shall not preclude causes of action based on claims that, but for a wrongful act or omission, maternal death or injury would not have occurred, or handicap, disease, or disability of an individual prior to birth would have been prevented, cured, or ameliorated in a manner that preserved the health and life of the affected individual." So, you can still sue your doctors for malpractice, lying to you, other ethical fudging, all you want. Go crazy. You just can't sue them on the grounds that your child is alive. You can have the same lawsuit on other grounds, but not on those.

Not verifing what the law in question is actually about. Fail number two.

Am I going to wade into all this stuff and comment? Nope. That thread is more than funny enough now. There's conspiracy theories and hating on the South and myths about pro-lifers flying so thick and fast that it's almost like a snowstorm. And it's hilarious.
Location: Ivy Manor
Mood: amused
Kelinci Hutan
23 February 2010 @ 01:42 pm
I'm not going to post any further in this thread, but ZoZo, who I usually like fine, has managed to try and make the argument that "pro-choice" is also "pro-life" and "pro-life" is really "anti-choice."

As usual, it's just as stupid as always, but rather than posting further there, since that drama will blow over fairly quickly if I don't, I'll just vent my spleen in my LJ. Being as that's what it's for and all.

And no, I have no intentions of being nice here. Skip this entry if that will bother you. )

What this really boils down to? "It's okay when I do it, but not when you do." It's entitlement. Pro-choicers are mad that the pro-life movement has the audacity to continue to exist after they've repeatedly told us not to. Now--far too late, by the way--they're realizing that "pro-life" has a much better ring to it and is more rhetorically powerful, so they are desperately trying to redefine the movement. They're going to fail for two reasons. 1. Pro-lifers are in the majority now. 2. This focus on "choice" leaves the terribly serious charge of, "Dude, you're killing human beings." to stand unanswered.

This is not a road the pro-choice movement wants to go down. The obvious rhetorical retaliatiation to "anti-choice" is "anti-life," and it's cropping up more and more commonly as "anti-choice" becomes more firmly established. If they lost the last choice/life rhetoric fight, they're really going to loose this one, and loose it hard.
Location: Ivy Manor
Kelinci Hutan
30 January 2010 @ 01:07 pm
CBS is airing a pro-life ad during the Super Bowl. I've been sitting on this, hoping I'd get to see the wank-splosion that was sure to happen on WGW after, but now I'm sadly denied this source of amusment.

Instead, I think I'll just make fun of any particularly lame comments here.

Wonder if they'd have let an ad run featuring a grieving husband talking about how his wife died from pregnancy complications.

Magic eight ball says no.
First off, unrelated situation is unrelated. I mean, it's about choice, right? So if this woman chose to go ahead with her pregnancy and died as a result, then that situation, while tragic, has nothing to do with the abortion debate. This is why I don't call the movement "pro-choice" unless I'm speaking to members. For a lot of this movement, there's only one choice, they're pro. If it were different, no one would care much that this ad is running. It's her choice, right? A few people have reacted that way but with most...not so much. All this uproar would not be if it were really about choice.

Second, how does that phrase go? "Never an easy choice, sometimes the right choice, always the woman's choice?" Yeah, that first bit is the one to notice here. Pro-lifers have a bottomless well of both jubilant stories of choosing life and celebrating it and sad ones of abortions that ruined lives. Abortion stories are usually just sad. The Super Bowl should be upbeat. Abortions are...not upbeat.

More to follow...probably.
Mood: amused
Location: Ivy Manor
Kelinci Hutan
A while back, I wrote about how a bunch of people on WGW were getting all up in arms about the census worker who was killed, and how it was--magically, I guess--all the fault of the Republicans.

Except now, his death has been ruled a suicide.

But that's Michelle Bachmann's fault, too, right? Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachmann, all those evil Republicans guilted this man into taking out huge life-insurance policies on himself and then faking his own homicide, didn't they? Because they hate census workers!

I am sorry this man is dead, but I just love when the blame-gaming people come up looking this stupid. This is me, pointing and laughing.
Location: Ivy Manor
Kelinci Hutan
The Ultra, Mega, Condensed, Cliff Notes Version is as follows:

1. Lolita joins GAFF at some point in the past.
2. Lolita makes up ALF and posts "her" stories to GAFF. Lulz are had.
3. Guru announces GAFF is going away and Lolita sees the end of the lolcow, so she creates the House of Bad Fanfiction, and the GAFFers move in.
4. The Housemates spend some time mocking ALF some more, helped along by TheDogLady and JasonFontaine. TDL and Jason are both Lolita's sockpuppets. Eventually, though, that drama is spent. Even when TDL "dies" (according to Lolita), it doesn't really revive.
5. Enter Dan Lirette. He apparently is a real person, and just as bad as we've been saying, but in him Lolita sees the potential for more dramaz.
6. Lolita starts feeding Dan Lirette info about SA. She also feeds SA info about Dan Lirette. This pisses off "the goons," who begin digging into her. IP numbers and so forth. Apparently trolling SA is SRS BSNS.
7. Around this time Lolita floats a rumor that JasonFontaine is Dan Lirette in real life. The Suspension of Disbelief for most Housemates does not go that far given that this would mean Lirette knows ALF and family IRL and had been marking this website since long before he'd even been on our radar. Many, many people (myself not among them) begin to ask Lolita how she knows all this stuff and why she's always ready with a story to answer all the questions.
8. Theweirdkind's account is stolen by Lolita around the same time as #7. Someone sees two people in the chatbox discussing how best to troll us using her account and posts this to Miscellaneous (now "The Lounge"). Theweirdkind's account is returned. When theweirdkind checks her message inbox, a whole slew of PMs about how to troll The House are discovered. Even more questions ensue.
9. Lolita disappears due to "family business" and leaves her account information with Verandering. Someone called JackNapier shows up and basically says what I just did in 1-8, only he took about a day to do it. According to JackNapier, SA blackmailed her into trolling for them. Also, an ED article on Lolita is revealed and is set to be featured in just a few days.
10. Verandering does some reading, decides all this is sufficiently solid to believe and that odds are Lolita is what JackNapier says. He uses Lolita's account to take over, closes registration to prevent an invasion of trolls, and does some cosmetic work on the forums.
11. June 10, Lolita takes over Verandering's account and begins to change things again. Shisaiga gets wise to her gag from another forum, created by Nihilist and starts PMing people. Then those people start PMing people and everything goes bananas.
12. The chatbox is deleted. InkWeaver and Zeiss Manifold begin bringing as many people as they can over to the new forums. Then forums begin to be locked for admin-only access. People start flooding to Nihilist's forum.
13. All the regular forums go down and "The Notice Board" goes up. Kittenmommy informs everyone that they are all horrible people for believing bad things about Lolita. She is ignored and nobody comes to play with her.
14. June 11. Kittenmommy opens up one forum for posting, where the majority of ex-Housemates say, "Just let us save our snarks." The rest of the boards are opened for the duration of about one hour.
15. Epic copypasta.
16. The board goes down. In all probability forever.

Mood: laughing