Misinformation & birth control: What are the deceivers called?

The poisonous influence of dark free speech on social media is finding its way into seemingly unexpected things. The WaPo writes (not behind paywall) about social media exploiting public ignorance to trick women into making sometimes catastrophic mistakes:

Women are getting off birth control amid misinformation explosion

Search for birth control on TikTok or Instagram and a cascade of misleading videos vilifying hormonal contraception appear: Young women blaming their weight gain on the pill. Right-wing commentators claiming that some birth control can lead to infertility. Testimonials complaining of depression and anxiety.

Instead, many social media influencers recommend “natural” alternatives, such as timing sex to menstrual cycles — a less effective birth-control method that doctors warn could result in unwanted pregnancies in a country where abortion is now banned or restricted in nearly half the states.

While doctors say hormonal contraception — which includes birth-control pills and intrauterine devices (IUDs) — is safe and effective, they worry the profession’s long-standing lack of transparency about some of the serious but rare side effects has left many patients seeking information from unqualified online communities.

The backlash to birth control comes at a time of rampant misinformation about basic health tenets amid poor digital literacy and a wider political debate over reproductive rights, in which far-right conservatives argue that broad acceptance of birth control has altered traditional gender roles and weakened the family.

Physicians and researchers say little data is available about the scale of this new phenomenon, but anecdotally, more patients are coming in with misconceptions about birth control fueled by influencers and conservative commentators.

“People are putting themselves out there as experts on birth control and speaking to things that the science does not bear out,” said Michael Belmonte, an OB/GYN in D.C. and a family planning expert with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). “I am seeing those direct failures of this misinformation.”

How many people are out there willing to knowingly lie on social media and mislead ignorant people into making tragic mistakes like this, ~5% of the population? What are those people called, disinformers or just liars? What about people who think they know things, but are wrong and unknowingly spread falsehoods that lead others to make tragic mistakes, misinformers or fools? 

The Best and Worst of US(SC)…

1. What do you consider to be the most egregious (wrong) ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent/living history? 
2. What do you see as its crowning (right) achievement?

Following is a short synopsis of some of the more famous modern-day cases.  But feel free to research other cases for yourself or that are of special interest to you.  There are indeed gobs.

*    *    *

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954):

The Court ruled that state-sanctioned segregation of public schools was a violation of the 14th amendment and was therefore unconstitutional.

 

Roe v. Wade (1973):

The Court, in a landmark decision, recognized a woman’s constitutional right to choose to have an abortion under the right to privacy, legalizing abortion across the United States. 

 

United States v. Nixon (1974):

The Court ruled that executive privilege is not absolute and ordered Nixon to release the tapes, contributing to his resignation.

Bush v. Gore (2000):

The Court, in a controversial decision, halted the recount, effectively awarding Florida’s electoral votes to George W. Bush and settling the election in his favor.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008):

The Court, in a landmark decision, affirmed an individual’s right to possess firearms for self-defense the home, interpreting the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to bear arms.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010):

The Court, overruling an earlier decision, Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (Austin), that allowed prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations. 

 

Nat’l Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012):

The Supreme Court upheld by a vote of 5–4 the individual mandate to buy health insurance as a constitutional exercise of Congress's power under the Taxing and Spending Clause (taxing power).  Upheld the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)

 

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022):

The Court overturned 50 years of precedent, overruling Roe v. Wade.

 

(by PrimalSoup)

For those who haven't visited Dishing it Politics

 Ooops. Sorry. Meant Dissident Politics. Dishing it sounds cooler though, doesn't it. But I digress.

Everyone is talking but no one is listening. Arguing online is pointless.

Is that true in most cases? Is it true here? Is it true over there at this guys forum?

My guess. Not true. But we are tough nuts, Germaine and I.

How about other forums?

I never argue with people online, rarely in real life too. I tend to listening other's opinions whilst silently judging them. Modern discourse isn't about changing people's opinions, it's about reinforcing your own.

Arguing with people online is pointless. They have their opinions and you have yours. Neither of you are willing to compromise and change your opinion. That would be a sign of weakness and we you can't let them win. You both put your side of the argument forth, slander one another, and both parties come away feeling superiour about themselves. When two people argue neither one really listens to the other person, they just wait for their turn to speak. You might as well be yelling into a tin can trying to get your voice heard.

Hmmm it's about reinforcing your own. I have to agree, 87.9% of online discourse does seem to be that way. 

Online debates are not about sharing knowledge or enlightening the other person to something they may have been ignorant about. These arguments are basically saying "I'm right. You're stupid." Making this statement would be too blatant so we hide our intentions behind facts, anecdotes and persuasive techniques in an attempt to demonstrate - "I'm right. You're stupid." In fact arguing with someone online trying to change their opinion might have the opposite effect. Instead of convincing them you're right you actually just strengthen their belief. This is known as the Backfire Effect -The more your beliefs are challenged the harder you hold onto them.

Hate to bring Trumpers into this conversation, BUT.............. the more we call them stupid the more it strengthens their beliefs that we liberal Snowflakes are picking on 'em. 

Slander has certainly become the tool of the loser in the political sphere. And with Donald Trump president the whole world has lost the opportunity for civil discourse. Prior to the recent Trump v Clinton election most online debates surround politics seemed to be reasonably educated, discussing policy points and the like. Now however it's degraded into a meme war, doxing and threats of personal attacks are common. Neither side is going to convince the other to change their opinion. Its one giant blackhole of intellect, draining the intelligence of all those who engage in the phony discourse.

Don't know where the author has been, but online discourse was nasty even before Trump. Check out the discourse in the Obama years. Sheesh, disappointing, the author is another who suffers from TDS. 

As for hurling insults, do we allow that here? Or over at the other guy's site? However, you go to a few other Disqus boards and ummm, it's hellfire over there (no names mentioned).

Changing your opinion isn't a sign of weakness. It's the only thing to do when confronted with new evidence.

Amen brother. THAT applies particularly to a certain demographic is my guess. What is yours?  

https://peakd.com/life/@moomoo/everyone-is-talking-but-no-one-is-listening-arguing-online-is-pointless

Everybody's talkin' at me
I don't hear a word they're sayin'
Only the echoes of my mind

News bits: MAGA profiles in cowardice; DJT & weaseling out; Musk’s free speech hypocrisy

A WaPo article reports about an Arizona state senator who had a non-viable pregnancy and had to get an abortion. She and her husband decided to tell the legislature her story of non-viable pregnancies so they could get a feel of the impact of forced birth laws. The WaPo writes:

On Monday, she shared her story in a 10-minute speech on the Senate floor. Voice shaking, Burch told her colleagues that she’d visited a clinic on Friday where she was given an invasive ultrasound and counseling on alternatives to abortion, despite already knowing her pregnancy was not viable. Required under Arizona law, those experiences, Burch said in the speech, were “cruel.”

While Burch held the microphone, a few of her Democratic colleagues stood behind her in a show of support. She said she could see some GOP senators leaving the chamber.  

On the Senate floor, Burch described the protocol mandated by state law as interfering in what she believed to be the “safest and most appropriate treatment for me.” She said she was forced to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound that she did not want and was then told about alternatives including parenting and adoption that did not apply to her situation.

There we have it. Some MAGA TTKP (Trump Tyranny & Kleptocracy Party) legislators have neither the guts nor respect to listen to what their infallible, God-sanctioned, blunderbuss forced birth laws force women to endure. Gutless pussies.

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

The Hill reports about DJT’s increasingly desperate blither about having to cough up the dough: 

[DJT] argued Tuesday he would have to take extreme measures in order to pay a $464 million bond due next week in his New York civil fraud case, such as selling some of his properties for cheap “fire sale” prices.

“Judge Engoron actually wants me to put up Hundreds of Millions of Dollars for the Right to Appeal his ridiculous decision. In other words, he is trying to take my Appellate Rights away from me,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform Tuesday morning. “Nobody has ever heard of anything like this before.”

“I would be forced to mortgage or sell Great Assets, perhaps at Fire Sale prices, and if and when I win the Appeal, they would be gone. Does that make sense? WITCH HUNT. ELECTION INTERFERENCE!”

It will be interesting to see how DJT weasels out of this predicament somehow. What are the odds he slithers away with his cash pile mostly intact? Not sure. My guess, ~50%.

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

The Advocate reports:

Elon Musk’s X bans transgender Harvard lawyer for naming a neo-Nazi

Alejandra Caraballo, a transgender attorney and clinical instructor at Harvard Law School’s Cyberlaw Clinic, has been permanently ban from X (formerly Twitter) for amplifying news of an alleged neo-Nazi’s identity, adding to questions about the platform’s stance on content moderation under Elon Musk’s ownership. The development has fueled ongoing discussions around free speech, hate speech, and the treatment of far-right ideologies on the platform.

The extremist, who produces comic illustrations under the name StoneToss, was allegedly unmasked to be a former security guard and IT worker from Texas by a group of activists, Anonymous Comrades Collective and Late-Night Anti-Fascists, on March 12. Critics note that StoneToss’s content is often anti-Semitic, transphobic, racist, homophobic, and otherwise bigoted.  

Another X user criticized the platform’s decision, writing, “Alejandra Caraballo @Esqueer_ has been suspended again, this time indefinitely for talking about publicly available information naming a Nazi. X is going full fascist. There is only freedom of speech if Elon agrees with you.”

I have said it many times here, radical right authoritarians are not fazed one iota by blatant hypocrisy and double standards. Musk is a blatant free speech hypocrite.

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

Christian nationalist hate speech & lies: Meidas Touch News reports about hate speech and lies from radical theocrat and US senator Tommy Tuberville:

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) told a gathering of GOP delegates in Utah on Friday at a Bluffdale warehouse that the U.S. is losing kids to a "satanic cult." The comments came as Tuberville was campaigning for Trent Staggs, a MAGA candidate for Senate to fill the seat being vacated by Sen. Mitt Romney.

"I’ve traveled all over the country...all 50 states. I’ve been in some good places and bad places. The one thing I saw, we are losing our kids to a satanic cult...we better start growing forces, and get together, and start fighting back against these socialist Democrats that are going to try and turn us into communists."

The only evidence Tuberville could provide for the existence of such a cult was the trans-rights movement in the United States.

"There’s not one Democrat that can tell you they stand up for God...when they look me in the eyes and say 'ok, we believe that boys should be able to participate in girls' sports. We believe that a man can have a baby.' I want you to think about what I just said," Tuberville said to boos and laughs from the crowd.

Tuberville also took the occasion to sow doubt in law enforcement and the criminal justice system, calling the January 6 insurrectionists "innocent," and saying that law enforcement would only arrest patriotic Americans and not actual criminals. “We’ve lost our Department of Justice. In most of the country, we don’t have a criminal justice system anymore. Nobody goes to jail, unless you’re an innocent person that really loves this country, then they’ll put you in jail. We have never overcome a cult like we’re dealing with right now.”

This hate and flagrant, shameless lying and insulting disrespect is from a sitting US senator. This is what politics in bad faith and ill-will looks like.

The Postcolonial Left's Blindness to Islamic Homophobia

 

Islamic homophobia is an issue that goes beyond terrorist groups like Hamas. While the Quran’s language regarding homosexual and bisexual behavior is somewhat ambiguous, the hadiths, the canonical sayings and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, contain many straight forward prohibitions. In practice, this results in both official and extrajudicial persecution of LGBT people throughout the Muslim world. LGBT Palestinians face extreme ostracism, are sometimes forced to flee as refugees, and even risk being kidnapped and beheaded. The authorities also ban the activities of LGBT rights groups. And it isn’t just LGBT Palestinians who are oppressed by Hamas in Gaza. The oppression of women is an intrinsic feature of Sharia law. Human rights researchers rank the Palestinian territories among the worst places in the world to be a woman. For Western activists ostensibly concerned about marginalized groups to effectively support Hamas's continued rule over Gaza and to deny Israel the right to self-defense against the terrorist organization is hypocritical in the extreme.

The leftist claim that British imperialism is to blame for the present-day Islamic homophobia is quickly debunked by comparing how LGBT people are treated in Gaza versus how they were treated in Britain last century. True, same-sex behavior was once criminal in the UK, but that law was repealed in 1967. Some LGBT individuals were persecuted by the British government in the recent past—most famously Alan Turing, who was chemically castrated and subsequently committed suicide. This is deeply shameful. But no one was strung up on a crane or had his head sawn off for having sex with another man. The oppression LGBT people face in Gaza is not the result of Hamas helplessly following the century-old statutes of the defunct British Empire.

The land that today encompasses Israel and the Palestinian territories was controlled by the British from 1918 until 1948. The British attempted to create two states, one for Israelis and one for Palestinians, but the Palestinians rejected the proposal. As a result, the British turned one of the states over to the Israelis, who promptly faced a war from seven different Arab countries and territories—a war which they won. 

https://quillette.com/blog/2023/11/15/why-a-gay-man-is-downplaying-the-worlds-most-vicious-homophobia/

Facts? Meh…

 

 

I watched an old Star Trek Voyager show about a week ago.  Season 4 Episode 23, “Living Witness” 

The plot was about how things we think we know about (in history) may not have happened exactly as portrayed.  No big surprise there.  Unless we personally witness something ourselves, or if the media shows it to us in real time, what actually happened is really a product of hearsay.  We are depending on others to “tell us the story.”  

Second-hand information always leaves the door open for possible biases, glossings over, taintings, indeed, what I call “juicifi-cations.”

Knowing of these information pitfalls conjures up, in my mind, the saying, “History is written by the victors” (i.e., winners, controllers of the narrative, most skillful story-tellers, etc.).

Let me ask you to think about that for a minute; “the telling of the story.”  Now, here are some questions to consider:

1. First, do you believe in the adage, “History is written by the winners?”  According to the internet, Napoleon called it “a fable agreed upon.”
2. If yes, how much of history do you suspect was written/reported accurately. 100% 99% 98%...   Or does it depend on the category for you?  In other words, generally speaking, do you tend to give some subjects more “room for error/latitude” than others?  And if yes, why?
3. Do you believe historic exaggerations ever happened?  If yes, does anything (any history in particular) “get your goat?” (piss you off)
4. Do you believe that, what we today call “Dark Free Speech,” ever got into the act (story)?  (I.e., an attempt to manipulate the narrative in someone’s (the winner’) favor, in spite of how things actually turned out.  IOW, lie for the sake of “the story.”)  Or, to quote a great line from “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance,” “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend,” meaning when the story of what happened is a better tale than what actually happened, print the tale.”
5. Juicifi-cation isn’t only relegated to the “hard” history books (American History, World History, etc.), but I suspect in religious histories as well (e.g., think Jesus, God, Allah, Koran, Tora, Bible, etc.).  How believable to you are these such religious histories? 100% 99% 98%...?

As a believer myself (that history was written by the winners), what better proof can I give than to have you look at how today, in real time, humans are still guilty of all these juicifi-cations that I’ve pointed out? People are people, yesterday, today, tomorrow. Are we any better today (more meticulous in our reporting) than the people of yesteryear?  I don’t think so.  

Granted, we do have better recording devices.  So there IS that.  IOW, it’s easier to catch people in a lie.  But there are modern day ECC bandages to take care of those nasty cuts. 😉  We can try to bandage the truth with DFS, but it doesn’t seem to have stopped the bleeding. 🤷‍♀️

(by PrimalSoup)