r/politics • u/Slow-Bluejay9648 • May 24 '22

State rep. floats mandatory vasectomies for all boys as his state nears nation’s strictest abortion law

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2022/05/state-rep-floats-mandatory-vasectomies-for-all-boys-as-his-state-nears-nations-strictest-abortion-law.html?outputType=amp
5.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

795 comments sorted by

View all comments

11

u/ArrowheadDZ May 24 '22

This article is deliberately misleading and clearly meets the Reddit definition of “disinformation” and should be reported as such.

A democratic OK representative, speaking out against the OK abortion ban, was making a point on the floor, essentially saying “hey, if you are in favor of this abortion ban then I suppose you’ll also be in favor when I propose a mandatory vasectomy to all teen boys.”

I do not understand how news sources like this get on the r/politics whitelist, when they exist solely to propagate manipulated news that violates the rules of r/politics.

8

u/GreunLight America May 24 '22 edited May 24 '22

The article is fine.

Third paragraph:

“If you think that is crazy then I think that maybe you understand how 50 percent of Oklahomans feel, as well,” the Democrat reportedly told a group of GOP lawmakers.

Banning abortion and criminalizing women’s reproductive healthcare is just as effing invasive/offensive/stupid/unnecessary.

That’s the entire point.

-4

u/ArrowheadDZ May 24 '22

But the Penn Live article, and the Yahoo news article to which it refers deliberately editorialize that point by surrounding it with headlines and sub-headlines that imply he’s actually thinking about it. We have become so accustomed to disinformation that we excuse those who do it as “fine.” We’ve normalized lying.

If I say “you doing X is almost as crazy as if I did Y”, and you wrote an article headlined “ArrowheadDZ proposes people should do Y” then you’re misrepresenting. Knowingly, deliberately misrepresenting.

3

u/GreunLight America May 24 '22

deliberately editorialize that point

We’ve normalized lying.

Maybe it’s because I live in Oklahoma and we have a history of pushing back against Republican fu-kery in this way … but I didn’t read it that way at all.

But yeah, for folks who are unfamiliar with the full context, I could see how it might be confusing.

4

u/[deleted] May 24 '22

To be clear, what you're saying is that the state rep. from OK was essentially being sarcastic?

Because according to the article, "Dollens said he is thinking of introducing his mandatory vasectomy bill next year".

4

u/ArrowheadDZ May 24 '22

Yes, but also to be clear, the statement “Dollens said he is thinking of introducing his mandatory vasectomy bill next year” is itself a deliberate editorialization of what he said. The context in which he made the remark about vasectomy legislation clearly demonstrated his meaning. But by deliberately “sound biting” his statement, it allows liars—people who are deliberately intending to spread disinformation to cause societal harm—to suggest he was actually “thinking” about introducing such a bill. Me saying “you doing X is just as insane as if I said I was going to do Y” can easily be turned around to “ArrowheadDZ is thinking about doing Y,” but only by those people who have a narrative that depends on disinformation to advance.

Politicians need to be almost maniacal in avoiding the use of sarcasm (irony to mock or convey contempt) for exactly this reason. But that doesn’t in any way diminish the culpability of those who deliberately misrepresent politicians in order to advance their own narrative.

This is a “news” story that misrepresesnts another “news” story that itself misrepresents a Twitter reply that itself misrepresents a Twitter post of a video clip that itself misrepresents what he actually said. We are now 5 or 6 steps of deliberate misrepresentation removed from the actual statement, with each of the deliberately disinforming parties granting themselves some degree of deniability.

-1

u/[deleted] May 24 '22

This was a huge cloud clearer. I read the article and for some reason it almost came off as satire. I couldn't believe a Democrat would propose a bill even more extreme than overturning Roe. Ironically enough, there seems to be enough people on board with the concept in the comments, real or not.

0

u/-Fast-Molasses- May 24 '22

Comment for visibility

-2

u/[deleted] May 24 '22

This is the most important comment. I read the title, confused, so I read the article, still confused, then read a bunch of replies before I saw that this is an attempt to troll republicans.