I think the fact that teriincali is using first-person plural pronouns is an indication that they are affiliated or associated with the group, probably noticing the click-throughs from the OPs links. I don’t see a problem with that, per se.
No, not at all.
We welcome people who complain about reverse racism with the same open arms we extend to those who complain about reverse sexism.
Ah yes, the asshole’s go-to rationalization: “look what you’ve made me do !”.
I’ll fetch the octopus, shall I ?
Depends, did the new guy bring pie? I like pie.
Like Paul said, I assumed that teriincali is affiliated with the site in question, and as such, a valuable resource to have here when discussing it.
Not to distract from the topic at hand, but I have to ask this.
Why exactly do you think that anyone here is going to believe a word of what terincali says? You’ve been reading this thread so you have a good idea already of what the opinion is of SAVE, and it’s overwhelmingly negative. It’s about split evenly between disagreeing with it and simply ridiculing it, and neither strikes me as a way of expressing support.
And if you haven’t noticed, terincali has shown up, and made it clear that he has some involvement in SAVE. So far, his posts have been received with skepticism at best, and relentless mocking at worst.
From other posts of yours I’ve seen, you clearly do not think much of the SDMB or its posters. Yeah, we’ve got a few dumbasses here, but we’re not a bunch of stump-jumping dicktards inbred between extras from Deliverance and The Walking Dead.
So with that, why do you seriously believe that any of us are going to take terincali seriously, much less believe every word he writes?
Sorry about the hijack, but I’ve been noticing this with mister nyx for some time and I wanted to ask.
Irrelevant. The asshole showed up in the Pit here, just begging to be Pitted! Don’t interfere! Grab a club and get in line! 
You know, one of these days we’re going to run out of paper towel rolls.
It requires about three seconds of thought to determine that this is an utterly useless statistic.
I realize that. But there’s been a big improvement since the recent past when the man always ended up in handcuffs, even when a woman with a bloody baseball bat was standing over his unconcious body.
Not me! I always save them after cleaning up from the octopus and… the other stuff…
Only an idiot would listen to any organization’s own PR and take it at face value, especially when compared to actual media reports. No one is obligated to accept your spin, especially since it makes perfect sense that you’d have to spin it, given what your organization is actually attempting to do. Especially since even advocates of the PVRA acknowledge the example I gave, where it clearly does reduce protection for immigrants who are victims of domestic violence (by making them choose between staying with abusive partners or being deported).
The PVRA is, from what I have seen, an attempt to reduce legal protections against domestic violence. No amount of spin actually changes the provisions of the law.
Because at least one poster has already expressed an interest in his viewpoint, which, if he were making an argument rather than just repeating the organization’s spin would be worth doing. Here, though, when you’re talking to a PR guy from a political organization, you’re getting spin, not facts.
And some people still seem to be taking him seriously even after he told an outright lie – we’ve already identified one provision of the bill that clearly would weaken protection against domestic violence for one group of people (other supporters of the bill even approvingly mention this provision!), and yet he denies that the bill would weaken domestic violence laws. He’s also touting nonsense statistics, from a study done by their own organization (surprise!) where the methodology obviously has some room for improvement. Anyone who still thinks it’s valuable to hear his viewpoint after that – as one poster clearly indicated – must have some preexisting sympathy to it.
Also, several posters have expressed views in sympathy with the views expressed by SAVE and the various other far right groups that have in the past advocated against strengthening domestic violence and rape protections. (And yes, as far as I can find, every advocate on the web for the PVRA is far-right or affiliated with the fringey, and scarily far-right “Men’s Rights” movement. Phyllis Schlafly, for one, seems to have signed off on the bill.)
And, generally, from having been around here awhile, I’ve noticed there’s generally a fair amount of opposition to feminism. Which would explain why some posters are “just asking reasonable questions” about what ought to be a pretty much open and shut case. Everyone has the right to make up their mind how they want, but treating spin from one side as equivalent to facts from one side is the exact same error that leads to the media’s much-lamented “cult of neutrality”.
Okay, so this is a haters section of your forum. Fine. Then you have fun making up stuff and lying about good people. Just like the other people lying about SAVE. (Do not believe everything you read in the “news.”) And, by the way, I’m not a HE, I’m a woman. If any of you actually care about abuse victims, you know where to find me. And it won’t be here.
Here’s the thing, though: it’s not a lie. The PVRA indisputably removes protections from immigrant women who are victims of domestic violence. If you want to say that fraud is a greater concern than domestic violence, at least you’re arguing what’s actually in the bill. Considering SAVE’s involvement in the mail-order-bride industry, it’s pretty galling, though.
In an abusive relationship?
One finds oneself hoping.
Before you go, I’d appreciate it if you addressed this:
I’m not being snarky. I’m just curious as to whether you understand why this is a pointless statistic.
And, one other question: why do you and SAVE refer to a “domestic violence industry”? Who makes money from promoting myths about domestic violence? Are there for-profit shelters or something?
Dude. Not cool.
All right fine. Opposition to this guy’s viewpoint is at 99.95% instead of 100%. I still think that’s a far better rate than you’d expect just about anywhere else on the Internet. And you’ve mentioned one person showing some level of support, however tepid it may be. There’s been about 20 or so posters in this thread. Of them, the strongest support of this SAVE crap is, you guessed it, tericali.
Everything else you’ve said are things I already know, so I don’t see a need to mention them.
As for the opposition to feminism thing, feminism has its issues. It’s a good concept, I support the idea of equality for women, but there are problems with the details. I have no problem with the goal women have, but there are some problems with how they’re going about it, and most of my problems are based on that I think there are easier and more practical ways of getting what they want. And even then, feminism can be bad when taken to an extreme, such as women considering themselves superior to men instead of equal. (Yes, I know that’s not true feminism, but No True Scotsman and all that.)
But really, take a peek at some other message boards on the Internet. Not ultra-liberal ones, but just general interest or your standard political board. Look at some of the women’s issues threads there, and then tell me that we are more sexist than most of the Internet.
Oh, and before I go out to the bar tonight, why don’t you show the post where this guy you mentioned expressed interest in SAVE’s views? Keep in mind, “expressing interest” is not the same as “fully support”.
No. But, cut me some slack, we’re dealing with what amounts to an apologist for wife-beating. And purportedly a woman. Let her learn what it’s really all about.
Far, far less than 99.95% of respondents here were “just asking questions” about weakening domestic violence protections. And, yes, that is the sort of thing I have noticed is kind of a pattern around here.
Then you’re pretty unfamiliar with much of the internet.