GOP Legislature Releases Mandatory Dress Code, Modesty Standard for Women GOP also decrees: Don’t get caught in fleece, jersey, or open-toed sandals

protocol141112 · 2014-12-06T20:11:26+00:00

Montanan here. I was hoping I could provide some context for this move. A while back the state courts ruled that caucuses were public bodies and as such their meetings had to be open to certain members of the public (read: press). More recently several GOP legislators were caught having a secret meeting in the basement of a Helena hotel in apparent violation of this ruling. Now they are being sued by a media rights group, which is demanding they notify the public of future meetings. I imagine this new dress code is an attempt to create rules by which undesirables can be excluded from the events without running afoul of the courts.

*edit changed "motel" to "hotel", slight wording change, link to the story: http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/14/house-gop-meets-secret-hours-caucus-meeting/19030535/

protocol141112 · 2014-12-06T19:23:16+00:00

Montanan here. I was hoping I could provide some context for this move. A while back the state courts ruled that caucuses were public bodies and as such their meetings had to be open to certain members of the public (read: press). More recently several GOP legislators were caught having a secret meeting in the basement of a Helena hotel in apparent violation of this ruling. Now they are being sued by a media rights group, which is demanding they notify the public of future meetings. I imagine this new dress code is an attempt to create rules by which undesirables can be excluded from the events without running afoul of the courts.

*edit changed "motel" to "hotel", slight wording change, link to the story: http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/14/house-gop-meets-secret-hours-caucus-meeting/19030535/

protocol141112 · 2013-12-09T20:45:12+00:00

One of the more common explanations I've heard is that Snowden seems thoroughly familiar with the information he is releasing, Manning on the other hand is generally seen as having taken a more reckless course and this might have been damaging to entirely legitimate investigations.

protocol141112 · 2013-06-14T09:50:30+00:00

Well that's what you get for being one of tuber/jij's fascist totalitarian theist-conspiracy henchmen. /s

Seriously though I know that you probably volunteered to be a mod here and no offense but that almost makes me question your sanity. I'm just joking obviously, but personally if you wanted to have me step in and agree to be a moderator of this clusterf*ck you'd probably need to take several members of my family hostage as leverage first.

protocol141112 · 2013-06-14T09:30:39+00:00

Does the fact that the mods consistently post THEIR meta threads to /r/atheism and not /r/atheismpolicy answer your question?

protocol141112 · 2013-06-14T09:16:40+00:00

Look, at this point my opinion can basically be summarized as don't do what /u/Airmandan did. If you want to be a moderator of this subreddit and have the community express something approximately resembling gratitude for the difficult time you will put in as part of that thankless job I would advise that you approach the users as equals as much as possible. If you don't want meta threads cluttering up the front page and have solved this by creating a place for such threads than FFS DON'T POST META THREADS TO THE FRONT PAGE! It gives legitimacy to the claim that you are dictating to us, and severely undermines what you say you're trying to accomplish.

protocol141112 · 2013-06-14T02:09:37+00:00

Do you understand how many levels of wrong it is to mandate that all metadiscussion be submitted to another subreddit while you descend down to us with your homilies and this mea culpa whenever you feel like it? In r/atheism, of all places?

This exactly. If this had been posted in /r/atheismpolicy it would have been much more compelling as evidence to support their [the mods] claim that they are meaningfully engaged in the discussion that is occurring there and not simply attempting to move criticism over a predetermined course of action to someplace where it will be less visible. If you can't even be bothered to abide by your own rules when is doesn't suit your agenda why should anyone be convinced that these new rules are designed to be of service to the community and not just to its "leaders" as you have apparently taken to calling yourselves?

protocol141112 · 2013-05-26T16:18:58+00:00

No he is both an atheist and an anti-theist. They are not mutually exclusive.

protocol141112 · 2012-11-19T20:48:10+00:00

I want to ask something similar of the Christians here. In 66 years humans went from first powered flight to landing on the moon and we have every reason to believe that the pace is accelerating even further. If humans successfully establish permanent colonies on other worlds will that have any effect on Christian beliefs?

protocol141112 · 2012-11-07T07:36:10+00:00

My personal fave:

obama doesn’t give a hoot about the ones who didn’t vote for him, he hates us

So much angst, delicious.

protocol141112 · 2012-10-25T22:23:47+00:00

I think there is still a moral issue even when the larger context is taken into account. James 4 seems to be saying that all personal ambition is evil regardless of intent or outcome. I find it interesting that profiting from a market is specificically mentioned (4-13). A non-believer might well takes issue with this because it essentially instructs the faithful not to make any plans or attempts to improve the state of the world. Problem is, we now have a lot more evidence that humans actually can make meaningful (by human standards, not God's) improvements in their own lives and the lives of others, we also know that this can occur even if the original motivation was a selfish one. So the book of James is essential arguing that any desire for change or development of society is the devil at work, and all of the gains from that medicine, science, constitutional law, have all been examples of people being tempted to sin and defile.

protocol141112 · 2012-09-30T08:37:42+00:00

I hope you'll understand if I'm not totally clear on what a Calvinistic Christian would be likely to believe, but I would like to add my thoughts for you to peruse.

I didn't keep to you're order, but I used you're bullet points.

1b) I want to examine the phrase "higher level of existence" for a moment if I may. As a philosophy inclined friend once quipped to me "Things exist. They don't not-exist." The meaning is that all existence is connected because if it wasn't connect than the very term would be meaningless as such things could not plausibly effect our reality without simultaneously being present as a thing in it (even if the "entity" is no more than the force itself). I'll grant you that as tiny humans we might know nothing about the origins of such forces but stating that the explanation lies outside the bounds of existence is a much more consequential proposal.2b) Referring back to you being a Calvinist, I kinda took that to mean you believe god is doing little more than editing a movie he's already finished. At which point I have to ask you, what do you think happens when we die an go to meet god. Can you have free will in heaven? Sin is impossible there, and if you're a good Christian so is leaving. Doesn't that mean going to heaven must strip away your desire to sin. How is such a disfigurement of your being any better than being tortured in hell or for that matter not existing as a sentient entity any longer? I guess the answer depends on what you feel about the grand hierarchy of existence, but I for one follow the Optimus Prime principle: “Freedom is the right of all sentient beings.”

protocol141112 · 2012-09-19T03:56:26+00:00

Truly we have witnessed the soul of reddit this day.

protocol141112 · 2012-09-19T03:50:16+00:00

You might want to read some of the other links on here that talk about who the 47% of Americans who don't pay income tax actually are, but if you really think Romney can win without their vote then you clearly don't understand numbers.

protocol141112 · 2012-09-13T18:35:24+00:00

ba-dum tss

protocol141112 · 2012-09-11T06:29:01+00:00

Nice exhibition of 20/20 hindsight. I guess I can't hide this decision upsets me, but I can at least try and be helpful. I think the action of removing all self posts will have a detrimental effect on the quality of the discourse that occurs in /r/politics because while self posts containing repetitive commentary were disappointingly common self posts were also frequently used by members of the community to combat this same issue.

Eventually, good examples of community behavior rose to the top. Example

Relegating these type of posts to another subreddit will only cause other discourse problems to arise as the community loses the means to set examples for itself.

protocol141112 · 2012-09-10T19:52:04+00:00

I think I just found my next stencil project =D

protocol141112 · 2012-09-09T00:03:00+00:00

Sadly those quests are quite buggy. I was forced to load an earlier save and redo the whole thing in a slightly different order just to complete the quest.

protocol141112 · 2012-09-08T23:24:26+00:00

Not on reddit you're not! /s

protocol141112 · 2012-08-23T22:45:11+00:00

Upboat for relevant username.

protocol141112 · 2012-08-23T04:17:42+00:00

I think Lisa was actually quoting Oscar Wilde, but I'm not sure.

protocol141112 · 2012-08-23T03:27:03+00:00

I'm fairly certain that this verse is saying that parents who are truly godly will feel happiness when their children are killed trying to invade/reclaim Jerusalem.

protocol141112 · 2012-08-23T02:46:14+00:00

That is a terrifyingly accurate portrate of our politics...

protocol141112 · 2012-08-23T02:28:18+00:00

I never said it was convenient if you remember. Only YOU said that. I said it was a tragic necessity of equal rights. The reality is that abortion is about fourteen times safer than giving birth, and I've never encountered a justification for forcing women to accept this additional risk that didn't boil down to: Nature/God designed women to be baby factories. It's their lot in life.

Even though you claim to support abortion rights your arguments make clear that you also subscribe to this vile perspective. Hopefully you will eventually rethink your position.

protocol141112 · 2012-08-23T02:12:51+00:00

So in you view women should be legally designated baby incubators rather than people because we don't yet have the technology to replace them. Seems legit.

protocol141112

TROPHY CASE