Yesterday, I conducted a quick, unscientific experiment on DU.

[hamsterjill]

I did it for my own information. I did not like the results.

I posted this in General Discussion;

"Abortion Opponents Are Quietly Going After One Of The Top Medical Schools In The Country"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026470507


And I posted this in General Discussion also:

"There's Another Duggar"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026470729



The thread about the ruling in North Carolina involving abortion has had ONE reply in 24 hours.

The thread about the Duggar baby had TEN replies in about 2 hours.


Can someone tell me why we talk about the Duggars here more than we talk about a woman's right to choose? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm interested in what other Democrats think about this. To me, it's a horrible commentary.

One of the foremost reasons why I vote for Democratic candidates is the issue of choice. Yes, the Duggars have the right to have as many children as they deem fit. I don't necessarily agree with their choices, but it is their choice to make; not mine.

But the same is true concerning the right for a woman to terminate a pregnancy. I will vehemently defend that right with my last breath.

There is no one out there trying to take away the Duggar's rights to have children. There ARE plenty of idiots out there right now ACTIVELY trying to take away a woman's right to choose.

Why does that fact (i.e., the loss of choice) not simply incense DU'ers like it does me?

[el_bryanto]

1. I don't know

Part of it might be that there's not much to discuss on abortion; most people are on the same page in that issue, so they might well read your article, say that's awful and move on. Or that's the optimistic way to look at it.

Bryant

[jberryhill]

5. that's my read as well

The fallacy of the OP is that "number of replies" = "some measure of importance".

It does not.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

7. I agree. I would also add sensationalism, scandal, and controversy draws eyeballs. For some,

the Duggars reproductive rate is controversial. So, their activities draw more eyeballs and comments whereas we're all pretty much in agreement on DU on a woman's right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.

[hamsterjill]

19. I do see your point.

But I feel that the freedom to choose is slowly being taken away. Much because there's not been an uproar to keep it. Look at Kansas.

Even if we all are on the same page, we are going to need to be vocal and united to fight for the right to keep choice legal.

I appreciate your point of view.

[el_bryanto]

32. I agree on that - I've been very upset about the Purvi Patel case

Which frankly is a lot more serious than some bigoted pizza joint - but her case seems to have flown somewhat under the radar.

Bryant

[marym625]

36. I think they are of equal importance

Absolutely the Patel case is horrific and immediate. But both things signify a terrible trend in this country that is allowing religion to dictate law. That allows for the discrimination of women to be seen as nothing more than reproductive vessels and LGBT people less than human.

It's all rotten fruit from the same tree

[el_bryanto]

45. I guess the reason I take the Purvi Patel case to be more serious

is that that is a judge speaking from the bench on behalf of the state of Indiana. But I take your point about the same problematic attitude motivating both actions.

Bryant

[marym625]

48. It's a movement they're succeeding in.

It serves multiple purposes and they need only shout out those few words, "Religious persecution! " Then they get to:

1. Turn conversation away from what is really happening
2. Have excuse for war practically anywhere
3. Vote down and out anti-discrimination laws
4. Turn women into things to be controlled

Don't know if you saw this today

Springfield, Mo., voters repeal LGBT anti-discrimination law

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-missouri-antidiscrimination-law-20150408-story.html

And every single one of the "religious freedom laws" being introduced make it possible to withhold birth control

[hamsterjill]

51. Great post!

It is the fact that they ARE succeeding that is very frightening. We've got to make it known that not all Americans feel the same way.

[marym625]

53. Thank you. and damn straight we do!

It's the biggest fight we have right now. The GOP are going nuts with this

[hamsterjill]

55. Totally agree.

But is it just me? Or is there no where near the "kickback" from Democrats over this subject as there might be over some other issues? An example being the kickback over the Indiana legislation promoting discrimination which we ALL (myself included) jumped up and yelled and said "no way in hell can this be okay". The kickback forced the Republican governor to have a press conference and back track. He was running scared!

Why is there not the same uproar over legislation that takes away women's rights? I see Planned Parenthood, etc. lobbying for support, but I simply don't feel the passion in the country as a whole about this issue as, say, I did back when abortion was being legalized decades ago.

Am I wrong?

[marym625]

57. Because we have no backbone when it comes to religion

We meaning Democrats. It wasn't the politicians jumping up and down about the Indiana law, it was corporations and us regular folk.

The Democratic party is so afraid of offending the religious right they just don't fight the fight like it should be fought. Look at Wendy Davis. She was basically alone in that fight as far as the party went. And she is gone from office now.

Back in the day when the moral majority came around, we fought. Then they started winning little battles. Even having Soap taken off the air because of a guy character.

Politicians back away from controversial issues or anything they think might hurt them in collecting money. The reason that Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and a few others are such a big deal is because they fight for what is right.

[winetourdriver]

56. Reproductive rights

You are right of course, women are slowly losing reproductive rights in this country. I also realize that we are all slowly losing all of our rights not sanctioned by our corporate lords and masters.

[Comrade Grumpy]

2. We're more interested in the Twitterverse than the real world?

Being a social justice warrior is so much harder when you actually have to do something.

[NuclearDem]

3. "social justice warrior"

[randome]

4. Mocking the Duggars is easy. Conservatives chipping away at abortion rights is depressing.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Prism]

6. Eh

You're on the Internet. People will always opt for the quick, lazy content. Do you know how many times, both on DU and elsewhere, I see tons of comments to a post or article where it's clear no one actually read the thing? You could post an article with the headline, "Sky is Green For Reasons" and then paste an entire article about why the sky is blue, and you'd get forty replies discussing the green sky. Just the nature of that beast.

Are you looking for considered conversation, where people have read articles, given thought to their positions, and then have solutions they think would work?

Unplug your computer. Walk outside. Pick anyone at all at random.

You have a better chance of finding it with them than you do online.

[hamsterjill]

20. Thank you. I see that happen a lot, too.

I have had people respond to a post that have NO idea what I wrote, much less expect them to read an entire article!!!

That said, I've been on here a long time, and there was a time (yeah, I know...groan...groan!! LOL) when the level of intelligent discussion was higher IMHO.

I do have a life outside of the computer, too, thankfully. I'm not one of those who has a gazillion posts under my belt.

[mythology]

8. I didn't see either

But also using two threads as shorthand for what DO is into isn't really valid. There are lots of reasons why an individual thread might get a response that have nothing to do with caring more about the Duggar family than the idiots trying to limit abortion, even in such an idiotic method (I say that like the usual methods of threatening/killing clinic staff or passing vaginal ultrasounds aren't idiotic).

[hamsterjill]

21. I stipulate and agree.

That is why I indicated that this was not a scientific experiment in my original post and that I did it for my own information. I still found the experiment interesting.

Thank you for your thoughts.

[Hekate]

9. I didn't see either thread

There's a lot I give a pass to, figuring someone else can fight that out today. But at least you got a KnR from me on your medical school thread just now.

[tkmorris]

10. I really don't think this means anything at all

A brief look at your first thread (about abortion opponents) offers no information that I would follow up on if I were casually perusing the forums. The allegation made in the thread title is not backed up by anything at all in the post. There is no who, no where, no description of what "abortion opponents" are doing or how. There is nothing but a brief quote from the article that offers no hard facts, just commentary about what "this" would do. What "this" is is never described in the post.

Of course you did provide a link which would presumably answer these questions but it is my experience that if your post doesn't give the reader something to pique their interest they aren't going to click the link to find out more. Further if a post doesn't generate responses almost immediately it likely never will as it sinks down the page quickly enough that it loses visibility, particularly during a high volume period of the day such as mid-afternoon which was when it was posted.

Sometimes it isn't the subject of a post, but the way the subject is presented that counts.

[hamsterjill]

22. The title of the article is used for the thread title.

I felt my comments beyond the article should have offered discussion substance. But your comments are worth considering in the future. Thank you.

[one_voice]

11. I missed the thread on the medical schools...

saw it before this one and commented in it.

I don't give a shit about a the Duggars. I don't understand why they're on tv to begin with, ridiculous.

[hamsterjill]

25. I don't care about them either.

I don't care about them either, really. Except their political involvement and views are somewhat concerning to me. They have an audience through their show.

I don't watch it myself.

[upaloopa]

12. There seems to me to be a lot of posts these days

Last edited Wed Apr 8, 2015, 03:52 PM - Edit history (1)

that criticize DUers for what they don't say.
I think this is a slice of the center left in America. We are not some homogenous group that is supposed to believe in some "liberal progressive" set of beliefs as if it were a religion with a creed and dogma.
If you are looking for validation I think you need to go to church.

[hamsterjill]

26. Excuse me?

I'm not looking for validation. I haven't criticized anyone either.

I'm stating unequivocally that the right to choose is being lost because more people are not standing up for that choice. If someone doesn't support choice, whether they see themselves as Democrat or otherwise, that's their right and their business.

It's an important right to me. I don't relish the idea of this country reverting to back alley procedures, something that I am old enough to remember happening.

[ProfessorGAC]

43. You Sure

First, your in allied territory with your concern about reproductive rights. So, maybe you need to adjust your focus on this.

Second, you are being critical, whether you meant to be or not.

You dropped a grenade in the room with your small sample size "experiment" and then got defensive when some posters found your OP lacking.

The entire premise of the OP is an indictment of DUers because they don't have the exact same passion on a topic as do you, and then you're proof is that two posts on one day is meaningful data. Seems kind of weak.

[hamsterjill]

46. The right to choose is being eroded in this country. There is no denying that.

Some of that erosion is because some of the "allied territory" is not defending that right. Please note that I said "some", not "all".

My purpose is to try to focus attention on the fact that this right is slowly being eroded. It was not my intent to indict anyone and I don't believe that I've done that. Nor do I believe I'm being critical.

I stipulate and agree that this "topic" is very important to me. Should I just ignore the topic because some are not as passionate about it as others are? This is a discussion board. I am promoting discussion.

[ProfessorGAC]

59. If You Say So

I'd say you're promoting divisiveness. As you incivil reply to my post makes manifest.

[hamsterjill]

61. How am I promoting divisiveness?

The right to choose is a Democratic platform issue. By advocating the need to fight for and maintain that right, how exactly am I promoting divisivenes

And if my reply to you was uncivil, then I can't imagine what you must think of some other posters on DU. I felt I was polite in my reply to your accusatory post that started this.

[herding cats]

13. I saw the Duggar post.

It didn't interest me, so I ignored it. I never saw the other post until now, but it's something I am interested in and would have read if I had.

ETA: It turns out I read the Think Progress article already yesterday. It spawned a pretty good conversation between myself and some friends about the medical necessity of D&Cs. I'm one of the people who would be dead if not for a skilled OBGYN having been properly trained in the procedure.

[hamsterjill]

27. Thank you.

Last edited Wed Apr 8, 2015, 04:57 PM - Edit history (1)

I appreciate your response, and appreciate the fact that you understood my reference to D&C's, etc.

Like most of the legislation that the Far Right tries to push, eliminating safe and legal abortions would have far reaching consequences - consequences above and beyond abortion alone.

[Zorra]

14. tl;dnr

I saw the Duggar post subject line, but not the "right to choose" post.

I don't even know what Duggars are, I assume they are another bizarre christofascist cult.

If I had seen your right to choose post, I probably would have responded.

Well done. I've given up on posting OP's in GD, too much work to construct a long OP and then post it and have it sink like a stone.

[haikugal]

15. It does make me very angry...FYI

I have odd hours and didn't see the post about abortion. Sorry

Keep posting we need to hear it and I think the subject of Woman's Rights gets lost in the shuffle.

[hamsterjill]

28. Thank you.

I'm happy to see some intelligent discussion on this topic here. I tend to agree that Women's Rights get lost in the shuffle at times.

[jeff47]

16. Replies tend to come from controversy or mocking.

There's nothing to mock or controversial on DU about the abortion story. Republicans and pro-life groups are being assholes is the vast majority's opinion. And the very small number of pro-forced-birth posters aren't interested in getting beaten down again.

Meanwhile, there's plenty to mock about the Duggars.

Also, wasn't there several other posts yesterday about the abortion story? I thought there was one in LBN.

ETA: Also, both posts don't have enough recs to hit the greatest page. So your posts were only read by people looking at GD directly, or happened to be looking at "Latest Threads" at the right time.

[closeupready]

17. I didn't think you had any fucking business dissing the Duggars.

For having a child. Their bodies, their choice. Except, here on DU, when those choosing are unpopular.

That's why I said nothing, though I saw it.

I didn't see the medical school thread until today, but even so, I have less than zero interest in tangling with most of those here who talk about both abortion and medicine. So again, I said nothing.

Cheers.

[hamsterjill]

29. I have stated that it is their choice.

But when they put their lives out in the public and get paid for doing that, I get to 'diss' them if I want to. It is their right to procreate as much as they want.

It is my right to think that is unwise for them to do that.

[99Forever]

18. ...

Personally, I have no idea what a Duggar is and I didn't see the other thread.

[marym625]

34. Me too!

I am almost tempted to check the post to find out what a Duggar is. However, I suspect I don't care.

[dixiegrrrrl]

23. check the number of views....that is more indicative of who sees what.

most of us, judging by the posts I put up, will read for the info but not stop to comment. DU provides a LOT of posts to digest.

[Helen Borg]

24. Experiment?

Did you get consent from those who participated?

[hamsterjill]

30. No, but I referenced that it was an experiment in the Duggar thread.

n/t

[Codeine]

31. Because we all agree on one issue

but we have some disagreement about the other. It's normal to have a discussion about stuff that is contentious.

On abortion rights, however, there is little to "discuss." We all support them. We're a very pro-choice group.

[totodeinhere]

35. I think you got it. I am much more likely to reply to an OP that I disagree

with.

[marym625]

33. I saw neither yesterday

I love your post about anti-women asswipes. I don't have a clue what a Duggar is.

Not a surprising discovery.

[akamushi]

37. agreed

totally in agreement...thank you for your effort...

[AuntPatsy]

38. I think sadly a majority would rather jump on a more high profile judgement situation similar to

The reasons so many tend to stop and view accidents and the like...

[NCTraveler]

39. Moths to a light. Often guilty of it myself. nt.

[KauaiK]

40. I cannot stomach the Duggar's

[PADemD]

41. I didn't see either thread.

It depends on the time of day and interest whether I read something. Also, I see some of the news items on other blogs or TV.

[hamsterjill]

50. Perfectly understandable.

Thank you for your response.

[kydo]

42. But, but, but Rachel Maddow

Did a segment on this very issue yesterday. And you know what? I thought to myself during the tease for the segment, "Gee self, you have seen this before. Oh yeah hamsterjill on DU! That's where!" Ok ok I didn't say hamsterjill but I did think to myself during the teaser "You also saw this on DU." Or maybe I saw the article after I saw the piece Rachel did. But that's not the important part.....

The important part was I was given the info twice just I did not remember who posted. So thanks hamsterjill! It was because of you and Rachel that the story stuck in my head, and that's a good thing.

[hamsterjill]

47. Thank you.

n/t

[Major Nikon]

44. You might want to expand your study to include the posts in all threads on both subjects

You might come to a different conclusion.

[hamsterjill]

49. Of course.

You are absolutely correct. That's why I indicate in my original post that this was not scientific and it was merely for my own information.

The purpose was to promote discussion, and I believe that's been successful. Thank you for your response.

[ScreamingMeemie]

52. Not this someone. Duggars in my trash can, so I'm not one of your "test subjects."

Thank you.

[hamsterjill]

54. Glad to know that!

Thank you.

[Doctor_J]

58. I think there are too many threads complaining about what threads get recs

The greatest page is nearly meaningless these days.

[Dont call me Shirley]

60. Did not see story #1, saw story #2 but didn't click, sick of those fundies!

PS. Left a reply on story #1 and rec, rec, rec!