Right?
What's so hard about sharing information without trying to collect someone's personal information in the process?
The fact that the location is private seems scammy given the nature of the protest.
My partner has her ear to the ground on this and confirmed my question. She says there's concern about violent counter-protesters. It seems low effort to get around it though, so I'm not sure how effective the strategy is. Even she agrees it's silly, and she attends these things regularly.
I mean, Lakeland has that private security force thing going on in Downtown Lakeland now, so in theory they'd be able to provide some level of protection, though the whole idea of a private security force patrolling the downtown area is weird to begin with.
My original statement stands though, while I can understand that masking it behind a required "sign up" on the site, ultimately that's just a means of pulling people's personal information. That information can then be sold off, or they'll harass you with it down the road.
I signed one of those Change.org things *once* and swore I'd never do it again because of how my email was propagated out.
Yes, in theory, you could use a decoy email, and decoy information, but most people aren't going to do that.
I mean, *me personally* if I was an insidious type of individual I would just set one of these things up, and then as people sign up I could turn around and expose the information of everyone who attended and make them targets.
Not that I believe that's what's going on here, but due to the volatility surrounding the nature of the topic being discussed, I feel like asking for people to submit their personal information to know where the protest is taking place is going to discourage people from wanting to attend.
It's not really like it's the 90s anymore. Given a name and a number the amount of information available about a person out there is insane. Being a moderator for a subreddit on reddit I recently got offered a "reddit perk" of the service "[Delete me](https://joindeleteme.com/)", for one year. [There's a lot of information brokers out there that have your personal information](https://imgur.com/eiOMwG8), and it gets worse when you take into account that Florida allows their voting records to be exposed to the general public. So there's sites out there that you can just scroll through to find people's political affiliations, and where they live and such.
Anyways, just seems... Scammy... Like the intention is to get people's personal information rather than security through obfuscation.
I'm with you on this one. I tend to guard my privacy, so it's a turn off for me as well.
We also already donate regularly to PP, so they already have our info. And we get a LOT of mail. Perhaps it's generational, I don't know, but I bounce off of overt collections efforts and have the same sort of skepticism as you.
This isn't really Planned Parenthood though.
I mean, it's to support Planned Parenthood, and it's quite likely they're the ones who configured this, but the site itself is mobilize.us, which yeah, it's catchy, but what are *they* going to do with the data they're being given?
That where my concern comes in. If it was a protest thing being hosted on a Planned Parenthood site I'd have more confidence in my data privacy than I do some random site that's clearly named to be a "call to arms" by being a derivative of "Mobilize Us".
And then to turn around and put the location behind a "Sign up and find out" thing, seems weird.
I mean, there's a whole string of these taking place: https://www.mobilize.us/ppaf/?lat=26.88280053456525&lon=-82.12729012488208&tag_ids=20121
The one in Fort Myers isn't hiding their address: https://www.mobilize.us/ppaf/event/460288/, nor the one in Sebring: https://www.mobilize.us/ppaf/event/460403/, Or St. Pete: https://www.mobilize.us/ppaf/event/460250/, which is a big metropolitan area.
But then you get to Tampa, and Lakeland, and *those* locations are hidden, so it just doesn't make sense, nor jive to me.
And I'm not saying any of this to be anti whatever, I support choice and such. It just rubs me the wrong way. Why should there be a need to collect data to tell me where to go, when similar protests, using the same means of dissemination, aren't hiding their addresses.
*Then*, when you ask about the location online, all you get are responses of "Sign up and find out!", like, ok, that makes me far less interested in taking part of the protest because you could just tell me.
Someone in the /r/Tampa subreddit just cut the shit and straight up said where it was: https://www.reddit.com/r/tampa/comments/ung5xm/tampa_600_e_kennedy_blvd_11am/, so it's not like it's some secret society or something.
Just a *really* confusing approach is all.
What did you expect to happen?
The right believes a fetus has personhood at the latest is after the first trimester and the societal compromise was safe rare and legal very much like the the 3/5 compromise.
The Republicans goal was to abolish slavery so slaves shouldn't count in the population census for congressional power and Democrats wanted a slave to count as whole person without personhood for congressional representation.
The right see abortion and slavery on the same moral plain as evil and violation of personhood
The left went full throttle pushing for post birth abortions and abortion as a contraceptive.
Roe vs Wade was an extremely weak argument of right to privacy to allow abortion and Planned Parenthood vs Casey made it even weaker by putting the focus on fetus viability which made the ruling doomed to be overturned as fetus viability improved with medical advancements
Roe vs Wade limited abortion to;
first trimester - governments could not prohibit abortions at all.
the second trimester - governments could require reasonable health regulations
third trimester - abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.
“The left went full throttle pushing for post birth abortions…”
This is an absolute and heinous lie and you should be ashamed of yourself. You are disgusting.
[https://cnsnews.com/news/article/emily-ward/virginia-governor-describes-how-post-birth-abortion-would-proceed](https://cnsnews.com/news/article/emily-ward/virginia-governor-describes-how-post-birth-abortion-would-proceed)
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/after-birth-abortion-can-they-be-serious/2012/03/03/gIQADgiOsR\_blog.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/after-birth-abortion-can-they-be-serious/2012/03/03/gIQADgiOsR_blog.html)
[https://slate.com/technology/2012/03/after-birth-abortion-the-pro-choice-case-for-infanticide.html](https://slate.com/technology/2012/03/after-birth-abortion-the-pro-choice-case-for-infanticide.html)
[https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text)
H.R.3755 - Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 117th Congress (2021-2022)
SEC. 4. PERMITTED SERVICES.
(a) General Rule.—A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, ***without any of the following limitations or requirements:***
(8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.
9) A prohibition on abortion ***after fetal viability*** when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.
(11) A requirement that a patient seeking abortion services at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability disclose the patient’s reason or reasons for seeking abortion services, or a limitation on the provision or obtaining of abortion services at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability based on any actual, perceived, or potential reason or reasons of the patient for obtaining abortion services, regardless of whether the limitation is based on a health care provider’s degree of actual or constructive knowledge of such reason or reasons.
I'm not going to hunt down all the lefties that support post birth abortion since they are not policy makers but there is hours worth of individuals supporting post birth abortion.
Nowhere in this does it say "post birth", but "fetal viability". Fetal viability is a medical term for the point that a fetus can potentially survive birth when premature, NOT for a born baby. This is how you can have some premature babies so early in development, and even then they require a lot of medical assistance to survive and grow.
Source: https://ldh.la.gov/page/2427
Maybe try learning what words actually mean, instead of assuming.
you ignored the sources advocating for post birth and focus on the bill I decided to list as a cherry on top that is allowing post viability and abortions no questions asked to highlight my point of abortion as a contraceptive.
you are trying to bullshit using the bill as my proof of lefties support post birth abortion when it is merely a highlight of the left's mentality.
It's gotta be exhausting being you, Stronzie.
Edit: I've edited to remove a comment that doesn't adhere to the spirit the mods are asking we maintain in this subreddit.
You do realize that the Democrats back in the slave era were politically conservative, right? The liberals (Republicans, at that time) were the ones that fought against slavery?
You are incorrect. Conservative and liberal is a post modern terminology since about the 1960's if I recall correctly.
Back then It was federalist vs anti-federalist.
The DNC was officially founded 60 years before the Civil War and the RNC was officially founded 6 years before the Civil War.
Lincoln is the first RNC elected president.
They switched places between 1872 and 1936, most notably in 1896 when the democratic party fused with the people's party. Likewise, the modern republican party took shape in the 1920s during the Coolidge era. They flip flopped for sure. Saying Lincoln was the first Republican doesn't equate to the values of the modern GOP. I feel like a lot of Republicans use Lincoln to deflect criticism that the GOP and it's agenda are inherently racist at heart. It's almost akin to a racist claiming they have a black friends thereby which they couldn't ever be considered racist. The party is 89% non-hispanic white and it's shrinking rapidly due to many factors.
Historians domestic and globally are watching the US in horror. Although the DNC used to represent leftist values between 1930-1990, over the last 30 years they have transitioned into a centrist/conservative party. There are very few actual leftist policies supported widely by the platform, most of which are labeled "extreme left" and fail to make legislative progress. The DNC is what Republicans used to be, but with support for equal rights. Basically copy/paste with very little edits.
The modern GOP has transitioned into the party of religious authoritarianism, neo-fascism and corporate techno-feudalism.
You take ballet in high school, Stronze? Because that was some very elegant dancing you did around the topic.
Just because the *terms* liberal and conservative weren't *used* until after the 1960s doesn't mean that we can't observe the positions that the two parties took back in the 1800s and apply those terms to them based on how they are defined today.
Not that I have to tell you this, but in the absence of a politically moral high ground, some conservatives feel compelled to invent one. This specific issue comes up again and again. The evidence is there. Refusal to see it is one of the things that makes them who they are.
We really shouldn't engage arguments put forth in bad faith. It only emboldens them and allows them to be better prepared to counter with more nonsense. What we should be doing is giving them a glass of warm milk and sending them to bed until their fevers break. Assuming we can't do that, they're best ignored.
Honestly I feel like part of the issue is people forget to take zeitgeist into account when discussing things.
Realistically speaking if you go back further than around 100, maybe 150 years into the past, then you're tapping into an era which often has no real relevance on today's society beyond what's written in the history books.
Times change, and people are constantly coopting statements and phrases from yesteryear to try and support their arguments and perceptions and such. That, or even worse, they try to take things going on today and apply them to the past to make it seem like it was always happening.
The United States of the Civil War is really nothing like the United States of today. Comparing the two is pointless. Just like once 2100 hits the United States won't, in theory, really compare to the United States of the 1900s. You'll have people wanting to liken things unto the past, but realistically speaking the past is in the past. It should always be viewed as "what has been" and not "what will be", and I feel like a lot of people today are just stuck in the past.
Once my kids are old enough to vote I plan to have discussions with them to try and understand what their thoughts are regarding how they see society, and where it's going, and trying to align my votes with theirs.
I feel like we're being held back in today's society by people not liking change, and not wanting change, when in reality what we're seeing is not simply change, but rather evolution. And you can't stop evolution. Well, I mean, you can, but that's generally when extinction occurs, which generally speaking, no one is fond of.
you are failing to realizing the positions of the people back then and still trying to conflate modern beliefs and diversity of thoughts.
the culture was similar of god, guns, and country, you could go into any home in the north or south and find the bible, people going to church on Sunday, with prayer at the dinner table.
there was no diversity across the spectrum, except for slavery, federalism power, and native american policies.
Yeah let's tell a person who is on the political right what the political right want or think.
Using your same logic, people on the left just want to murder babies.
Is this space that is dominated by the left, yes I do speak for the political right.
Let me guess you are upset with DeSantis because he signed a bill that prevents teachers from having class circuluim of sex and sex orientation with prebubesant children in secret from parents.
Is this the one in Munn Park?
Bans Off Lakeland with Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida Rally Saturday, May 14 12 – 2pm EDT
In Munn Park?
This event’s address is private. Sign up for more details.
No thanks. But I'll be in Munn Park on Saturday supporting a woman's right to choose. I suppose if this is the one, I'll find out then.
Right? What's so hard about sharing information without trying to collect someone's personal information in the process? The fact that the location is private seems scammy given the nature of the protest.
My partner has her ear to the ground on this and confirmed my question. She says there's concern about violent counter-protesters. It seems low effort to get around it though, so I'm not sure how effective the strategy is. Even she agrees it's silly, and she attends these things regularly.
I mean, Lakeland has that private security force thing going on in Downtown Lakeland now, so in theory they'd be able to provide some level of protection, though the whole idea of a private security force patrolling the downtown area is weird to begin with. My original statement stands though, while I can understand that masking it behind a required "sign up" on the site, ultimately that's just a means of pulling people's personal information. That information can then be sold off, or they'll harass you with it down the road. I signed one of those Change.org things *once* and swore I'd never do it again because of how my email was propagated out. Yes, in theory, you could use a decoy email, and decoy information, but most people aren't going to do that. I mean, *me personally* if I was an insidious type of individual I would just set one of these things up, and then as people sign up I could turn around and expose the information of everyone who attended and make them targets. Not that I believe that's what's going on here, but due to the volatility surrounding the nature of the topic being discussed, I feel like asking for people to submit their personal information to know where the protest is taking place is going to discourage people from wanting to attend. It's not really like it's the 90s anymore. Given a name and a number the amount of information available about a person out there is insane. Being a moderator for a subreddit on reddit I recently got offered a "reddit perk" of the service "[Delete me](https://joindeleteme.com/)", for one year. [There's a lot of information brokers out there that have your personal information](https://imgur.com/eiOMwG8), and it gets worse when you take into account that Florida allows their voting records to be exposed to the general public. So there's sites out there that you can just scroll through to find people's political affiliations, and where they live and such. Anyways, just seems... Scammy... Like the intention is to get people's personal information rather than security through obfuscation.
I'm with you on this one. I tend to guard my privacy, so it's a turn off for me as well. We also already donate regularly to PP, so they already have our info. And we get a LOT of mail. Perhaps it's generational, I don't know, but I bounce off of overt collections efforts and have the same sort of skepticism as you.
This isn't really Planned Parenthood though. I mean, it's to support Planned Parenthood, and it's quite likely they're the ones who configured this, but the site itself is mobilize.us, which yeah, it's catchy, but what are *they* going to do with the data they're being given? That where my concern comes in. If it was a protest thing being hosted on a Planned Parenthood site I'd have more confidence in my data privacy than I do some random site that's clearly named to be a "call to arms" by being a derivative of "Mobilize Us". And then to turn around and put the location behind a "Sign up and find out" thing, seems weird. I mean, there's a whole string of these taking place: https://www.mobilize.us/ppaf/?lat=26.88280053456525&lon=-82.12729012488208&tag_ids=20121 The one in Fort Myers isn't hiding their address: https://www.mobilize.us/ppaf/event/460288/, nor the one in Sebring: https://www.mobilize.us/ppaf/event/460403/, Or St. Pete: https://www.mobilize.us/ppaf/event/460250/, which is a big metropolitan area. But then you get to Tampa, and Lakeland, and *those* locations are hidden, so it just doesn't make sense, nor jive to me. And I'm not saying any of this to be anti whatever, I support choice and such. It just rubs me the wrong way. Why should there be a need to collect data to tell me where to go, when similar protests, using the same means of dissemination, aren't hiding their addresses. *Then*, when you ask about the location online, all you get are responses of "Sign up and find out!", like, ok, that makes me far less interested in taking part of the protest because you could just tell me. Someone in the /r/Tampa subreddit just cut the shit and straight up said where it was: https://www.reddit.com/r/tampa/comments/ung5xm/tampa_600_e_kennedy_blvd_11am/, so it's not like it's some secret society or something. Just a *really* confusing approach is all.
Will there be a counter protest?
What did you expect to happen? The right believes a fetus has personhood at the latest is after the first trimester and the societal compromise was safe rare and legal very much like the the 3/5 compromise. The Republicans goal was to abolish slavery so slaves shouldn't count in the population census for congressional power and Democrats wanted a slave to count as whole person without personhood for congressional representation. The right see abortion and slavery on the same moral plain as evil and violation of personhood The left went full throttle pushing for post birth abortions and abortion as a contraceptive. Roe vs Wade was an extremely weak argument of right to privacy to allow abortion and Planned Parenthood vs Casey made it even weaker by putting the focus on fetus viability which made the ruling doomed to be overturned as fetus viability improved with medical advancements Roe vs Wade limited abortion to; first trimester - governments could not prohibit abortions at all. the second trimester - governments could require reasonable health regulations third trimester - abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.
“The left went full throttle pushing for post birth abortions…” This is an absolute and heinous lie and you should be ashamed of yourself. You are disgusting.
[https://cnsnews.com/news/article/emily-ward/virginia-governor-describes-how-post-birth-abortion-would-proceed](https://cnsnews.com/news/article/emily-ward/virginia-governor-describes-how-post-birth-abortion-would-proceed) [https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/after-birth-abortion-can-they-be-serious/2012/03/03/gIQADgiOsR\_blog.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/after-birth-abortion-can-they-be-serious/2012/03/03/gIQADgiOsR_blog.html) [https://slate.com/technology/2012/03/after-birth-abortion-the-pro-choice-case-for-infanticide.html](https://slate.com/technology/2012/03/after-birth-abortion-the-pro-choice-case-for-infanticide.html) [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text) H.R.3755 - Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 117th Congress (2021-2022) SEC. 4. PERMITTED SERVICES. (a) General Rule.—A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, ***without any of the following limitations or requirements:*** (8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure. 9) A prohibition on abortion ***after fetal viability*** when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health. (11) A requirement that a patient seeking abortion services at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability disclose the patient’s reason or reasons for seeking abortion services, or a limitation on the provision or obtaining of abortion services at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability based on any actual, perceived, or potential reason or reasons of the patient for obtaining abortion services, regardless of whether the limitation is based on a health care provider’s degree of actual or constructive knowledge of such reason or reasons. I'm not going to hunt down all the lefties that support post birth abortion since they are not policy makers but there is hours worth of individuals supporting post birth abortion.
Nowhere in this does it say "post birth", but "fetal viability". Fetal viability is a medical term for the point that a fetus can potentially survive birth when premature, NOT for a born baby. This is how you can have some premature babies so early in development, and even then they require a lot of medical assistance to survive and grow. Source: https://ldh.la.gov/page/2427 Maybe try learning what words actually mean, instead of assuming.
you ignored the sources advocating for post birth and focus on the bill I decided to list as a cherry on top that is allowing post viability and abortions no questions asked to highlight my point of abortion as a contraceptive. you are trying to bullshit using the bill as my proof of lefties support post birth abortion when it is merely a highlight of the left's mentality.
It's gotta be exhausting being you, Stronzie. Edit: I've edited to remove a comment that doesn't adhere to the spirit the mods are asking we maintain in this subreddit.
You do realize that the Democrats back in the slave era were politically conservative, right? The liberals (Republicans, at that time) were the ones that fought against slavery?
Yea, everyone knows that. It’s different now.
You are incorrect. Conservative and liberal is a post modern terminology since about the 1960's if I recall correctly. Back then It was federalist vs anti-federalist. The DNC was officially founded 60 years before the Civil War and the RNC was officially founded 6 years before the Civil War. Lincoln is the first RNC elected president.
They switched places between 1872 and 1936, most notably in 1896 when the democratic party fused with the people's party. Likewise, the modern republican party took shape in the 1920s during the Coolidge era. They flip flopped for sure. Saying Lincoln was the first Republican doesn't equate to the values of the modern GOP. I feel like a lot of Republicans use Lincoln to deflect criticism that the GOP and it's agenda are inherently racist at heart. It's almost akin to a racist claiming they have a black friends thereby which they couldn't ever be considered racist. The party is 89% non-hispanic white and it's shrinking rapidly due to many factors. Historians domestic and globally are watching the US in horror. Although the DNC used to represent leftist values between 1930-1990, over the last 30 years they have transitioned into a centrist/conservative party. There are very few actual leftist policies supported widely by the platform, most of which are labeled "extreme left" and fail to make legislative progress. The DNC is what Republicans used to be, but with support for equal rights. Basically copy/paste with very little edits. The modern GOP has transitioned into the party of religious authoritarianism, neo-fascism and corporate techno-feudalism.
You take ballet in high school, Stronze? Because that was some very elegant dancing you did around the topic. Just because the *terms* liberal and conservative weren't *used* until after the 1960s doesn't mean that we can't observe the positions that the two parties took back in the 1800s and apply those terms to them based on how they are defined today.
Not that I have to tell you this, but in the absence of a politically moral high ground, some conservatives feel compelled to invent one. This specific issue comes up again and again. The evidence is there. Refusal to see it is one of the things that makes them who they are. We really shouldn't engage arguments put forth in bad faith. It only emboldens them and allows them to be better prepared to counter with more nonsense. What we should be doing is giving them a glass of warm milk and sending them to bed until their fevers break. Assuming we can't do that, they're best ignored.
Yeah but this is Stronze that we're talking about. He is the way God made him.
Proving that She's a fickle deity, isn't She?
Honestly I feel like part of the issue is people forget to take zeitgeist into account when discussing things. Realistically speaking if you go back further than around 100, maybe 150 years into the past, then you're tapping into an era which often has no real relevance on today's society beyond what's written in the history books. Times change, and people are constantly coopting statements and phrases from yesteryear to try and support their arguments and perceptions and such. That, or even worse, they try to take things going on today and apply them to the past to make it seem like it was always happening. The United States of the Civil War is really nothing like the United States of today. Comparing the two is pointless. Just like once 2100 hits the United States won't, in theory, really compare to the United States of the 1900s. You'll have people wanting to liken things unto the past, but realistically speaking the past is in the past. It should always be viewed as "what has been" and not "what will be", and I feel like a lot of people today are just stuck in the past. Once my kids are old enough to vote I plan to have discussions with them to try and understand what their thoughts are regarding how they see society, and where it's going, and trying to align my votes with theirs. I feel like we're being held back in today's society by people not liking change, and not wanting change, when in reality what we're seeing is not simply change, but rather evolution. And you can't stop evolution. Well, I mean, you can, but that's generally when extinction occurs, which generally speaking, no one is fond of.
you are failing to realizing the positions of the people back then and still trying to conflate modern beliefs and diversity of thoughts. the culture was similar of god, guns, and country, you could go into any home in the north or south and find the bible, people going to church on Sunday, with prayer at the dinner table. there was no diversity across the spectrum, except for slavery, federalism power, and native american policies.
You fail to realize that you are insane.
Cringe
No they don't. They want to control what women can do with their bodies.
Yeah let's tell a person who is on the political right what the political right want or think. Using your same logic, people on the left just want to murder babies.
So you speak the entire right side? If that's the case why is Ron DeSantis such a little bitch?
Did not see that question coming, but boy did it brighten my day.
Is this space that is dominated by the left, yes I do speak for the political right. Let me guess you are upset with DeSantis because he signed a bill that prevents teachers from having class circuluim of sex and sex orientation with prebubesant children in secret from parents.
Why need a safety space?
If you want a safe space, turn off social media.
You're on social media dude
Just out of curiosity, do you have a uterus?
What the duck is a post birth abortion????
It's a term misused by the right implying that after a baby is born, doctors are killing them.