Comments by "JLH" (@Kyarrix) on "FRONTLINE PBS | Official"
channel.
-
To those who are in agreement with the court, who are in favor of restricting access to abortion. The vast majority of you don't care at all about babies. If you did, you would be in favor of healthcare for everyone, not just for the children of people who can afford it. If you cared about babies, you would be more concerned with birth control and sex education so that unwanted pregnancies didn't happen in the first place.
But you're not. The overwhelming majority of you aren't concerned at all about babies.You're concerned with punishing women. You believe that you have the right to decide what a woman can and can't do and it threatens you if she decides to do something different from what you believe to be correct.
People will have sex, no matter what you say or believe. That is what people have always done and will always do. If you really cared about babies, you would want to prevent births where the parents can't take care of the baby. But you don't, you don't want to fund sex education, birth control or healthcare. You don't want to take care of the babies once they're born. All you care about is the ability to penalize women for the temerity of having sex. That is your goal.
I am trying for patience and tolerance but I admit that I am filled with disgust and anger for the people who are trying to make the lives of poor women more difficult.
Middle class women, wealthy women will always have the ability to go to a different state and end their pregnancy. This will affect women who can least afford it. And these babies, the babies you will force on these women, what kind of lives will they have? You don't care about the babies' lives, your deep Christian concern ends when the baby exits the woman's womb. The hypocrisy is stunning.
We don't have healthcare for all in this country, almost every other country has it but we don't. We don't offer sex education, contraception, we talk about this being the greatest country in the world, and it once was, but no longer.
Don't be a hypocrite. If you claim to care about the lives of babies, care about them once they're born.
118
-
76
-
@powruser0 I'll share what I wrote about it. I understand what you're saying but when a woman's husband says "we need to do this so that we can take our money with us" and the husband is middle eastern, he expects compliance. That doesn't mean she didn't know but it doesn't mean that she did. Here's my full comment:
The rush to judgment is wrong. Too many commenters are basing their assessment of her on the things her father and an ex-boyfriend said. Their statements regarding her character are not credible evidence. Her father says she was rebellious as a child, of course she was rebellious, they were Jehovah's witnesses. Most of us would be rebellious in that situation. Her ex-boyfriend talked about her liking cars and motorcycles, many people like cars and motorcycles. But it's presented as being suggestive of an inherently flawed personality.
She talked about being tortured in an ISIS jail under suspicion of being an American spy. That was substantiated but the interviewer still portrayed it as suspect. The little boy who was purchased as a slave regarded her as his surrogate mother and said that she was very kind to him and that he wanted to be near her.
The girl who was purchased as a slave, said that Sam told her she wouldn't be a slave and that she would be treated as a daughter. She viewed it as a rescue. The girl said that Moussa beat Samantha and abused her. The fact that Moussa also raped the girl cannot be held against Samantha. If you blame her for bringing the girl into their home, consider what had happened to her until that time and what would have happened to her in other households. It was and is a horrible thing, but Samantha was acting out of compassion and wanted to help. She also substantiated the fact that Moussa beat Sam to the point of screaming. And her son Matthew referred to Moussa being violent and mentally unstable.
Every point the interviewer raises, talking about her story unraveling and viewing everything with suspicion, each one of those points can be explained. She made a very poor choice in getting together with Moussa but that doesn't prove that she intended to help ISIS. All that it proves is bad judgment. We don't know how much she knew about where they were going. She was married to the man, she had a child with him and at that point she probably trusted him.
With respect to the videos the interviewer raised as though they proved certain guilt, it is entirely credible that she didn't pay much attention to what they were watching. It's reasonable that she went shopping or did something different while he was watching videos with his friends. The culture that he came from doesn't encourage men and women socializing together. It would have been viewed as odd for her to sit with the men and watch whatever videos they were watching.
The part of this that I find most objectionable is the interviewer's approach. Frontline generally does an excellent job but here there is the building of a case with each piece of information presented as more damning evidence. However, when you look at it, each point can be explained. But when she tries to explain, he presents it as though she is lying. By the time you reach the end of the video you're ready to lock her up and throw away the key.
At the end the interviewer tells us that she is lying, that she won't accept her guilt but he puts her in untenable position by asking her to say something that contradicts the terms of the plea agreement. She can't do that, if she does the plea agreement could be withdrawn.
I don't know if she is guilty, I don't know what she knew or when she knew it. We know that she exercised poor judgment. We can say for certain that she should have known things that she might not have known due to the kind of relationship she was in and the culture of the man she was married to. She shouldn't have been willing to move money illegally, but this is something that many people do and it doesn't prove intent to support ISIS, it proves bad judgment.
I've written this not because I find her to be sympathetic, but because I found the interviewer's approach to be lacking in objectivity and unnecessarily condemnatory. It is wrong on his part to offer hearsay and opinions from people who have an axe to grind as solid evidence while viewing her explanations as suspect and instructing the audience to do the same.
...
For context, I lived in the middle east for a few years. I know that culture. You might be right but the way the video presented the information was one-sided. Information that he presented as compelling evidence wasn't. I would have liked to have represented her in this, either her attorney did not do a great job or the government was determined to find someone to blame, perhaps both.
39
-
35
-
27
-
24
-
21
-
15
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
10
-
@krisr3612 Thank you. I felt the familiar surge of hopelessness and dread when I saw his comment. I thought I'd missed something until I realized there was a photo.
It is staggering, genuinely shocking to me that this still has to be explained. How is it not intuitive for men to understand that it's wrong to hit on a woman just because he feels like it, anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances?
When he asked what's wrong with finding someone attractive, that can't be in good faith, can it? Are there really men who genuinely think it's flattering to women to be constantly hassled and harassed and subjected to this in every single arena? I know this is a small example but it's late and I'm tired and it's upsetting me because it never stops.
To the guy who asked if the woman was single, in the event that you read this:
It's not flattering. It's a weight women carry all the time, everywhere. Even relaxed watching a serious video, some guy will think he has the right, the sense that what he wants matters more than her right to be left alone.
You don't know that woman, you don't know the first thing about her, you don't know her name, you didn't answer the question she asked about playing the video. You saw a picture and decided to hassle her. And it is a hassle, put yourself in the shoes of women. How do you think it feels to always be viewed as an object, as a piece of meat. If you had answered her question and then continued talking about the video, maybe, down the line it might have been appropriate to ask but in the absence of anything else? "Hey baby, nice picture, wanna f***," isn't flattering. It's harassment.
There is the not so sub subtext here that if a woman puts a picture of herself up then she wants to be admired and hassled. Why would you think that way? Women don't exist for your entertainment. If you attach a headshot, nothing sexual just a picture of your face to something that is not an invitation. The belief that anything about a woman that is appealing is therefore incitement for men is offensive and insulting to men and women both. Men can control themselves. You can decide to view women as humans, just like you. Please do so.
9
-
@ShowMeSomething1 Don't take the time to respond to him. He's doing his utmost to get under your skin talking about women not being responsible. He's reaching for any possible argument that he knows is wrong but he's doing it in order to elicit a response.
This is the type of man who lays responsibility for everything at women's feet. He doesn't care if a woman uses birth control, his interest is in controlling female sexuality and where he can't control it, punishing it. Avoid men like this, don't argue with them, don't engage with them. He isn't open to logic, if you try logic he'll tell you you're being emotional because he knows that calling a woman emotional is irritating. All he wants to do is annoy you and anyone else. I don't understand why, but it's what he's doing.
The only thing you can do is to hope that something will happen to open his eyes. Until then, arguing is counterproductive and potentially emotionally stressful for you.
This man is very angry at something or things that happened in his life and he thinks that women are responsible. It sounds condescending to wish someone get therapy but I mean it in different way. Therapy with a good therapist is extremely useful and helpful and I hope he and others like him find their way to help, either through a therapist or through whatever means can assist them. Until then though, it's necessary to not engage because it will only feed their anger and our disappointment.
Edit: It occurs to me that this may be how he tries to find women. He'll argue with you, call you stupid, tell you you're wrong and emotional and try to break you down and then ask you out. I very much hope that no women fall into that trap, he's much too angry and potentially damaging to any woman.
9
-
9
-
8
-
@critter4004 I had to edit my comment to you several times because your response made me so angry. Who are you to sit on high and judge another person with so much smug self-satisfaction? You don't know anything about that individual's life or nutritional background. You took a comment someone made in pain and you turned it into an opportunity to feel superior. You "simply" avoided tooth decay by not eating sugars and starches. The word simply does a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. Avoiding the need for dental care is far more complicated than simply avoiding sugars and starch.
If an individual doesn't get adequate dental care when they are a child, that can set them up for a lifetime of problems. Tens of millions of children do not get adequate medical and dental care in the US. There are many factors other than diet. Two individuals eating the same healthy diet can have vastly different dental situations. I have to go to the dentist every 6 months, my best friend goes once in a decade with no ill effects and I eat a very healthy diet. As for eating sugar or starches, you should be aware that brushing your teeth immediately ameliorates most of the bad dental effects of these foods. I'm not advocating for eating sugars and starches, they should be avoided for other reasons, but when they are eaten, brush right away.
Your comment embodies so much of what is wrong in this country. Blaming another person for their misfortune without any knowledge of the circumstances while feeling superior for "simply" making better choices.
I'm going to make a suggestion that will probably seem alien to you. Even if they had all of the information, even if they had received exemplary care as a child and willfully ate grains and sugar, they should still not have to suffer rotting teeth and the inability to chew.
Healthcare and dental care should not be for-profit industries. I've lived in other countries where everyone receives basic medical and dental care. Our taxes pay for roads, the postal service, schools, police and firefighters, the necessary and essential services we share as a society. In every other developed nation and in some that are not healthcare is understood to be a necessity just like roads, bridges and schools.
What differentiates you from the person you responded to? Luck of the draw? Education? Opportunity? All of the factors in a person's life that contribute to making them who they are. If you work 12 hours a day in a warehouse, you're probably not going to have time to educate yourself on what to eat. You might not have access to those foods or time to cook them. By the time you get to the age of 60 and have struggled your whole life, your dental health may just not be exemplary for many reasons that were never in your control.
We don't prioritize education. We don't prioritize the well-being of the people who live here. Profit is the only concern. Industries with a vested financial interest actively fight against the public being made aware of how bad their products are.
Do you remember Coca-Cola's advertising campaign where they said that all calories are the same and the only important thing is the number of calories, as long as you don't eat too many calories Coca-Cola has a place in a healthy diet. They outright said that there's no difference between 200 calories of broccoli or salmon or Coca-Cola. They knew that wasn't true but they still ran with it. And they got away with it.
The tobacco companies still sell cigarettes. The processed food corporations maintain staffs of thousands whose job it is to formulate foods that will be uniquely addictive. Remember Lay's potato chips? "Bet you can't eat just one!" that give away the game up front.
These foods are manufactured to bypass our satiety mechanisms. They are made to induce overeating, calories that provide no nutritional value and do significant damage. And they are all sold and marketed to those who are most vulnerable.
You are lucky that you were able to educate yourself. You understand that sugars and starches are bad for your health and bad for your teeth. You probably have enough time to make good food. You might have had a baseline of dental care or were able to get it for yourself or happened to luck out and never need it. Do you think that only those similarly situated to you deserve to be healthy? Do you really believe that it is as simple as avoiding sugars and starches?
8
-
7
-
The rush to judgment is wrong. Too many commenters are basing their assessment of her on the things her father and an ex-boyfriend said. Their statements regarding her character are not credible evidence. Her father says she was rebellious as a child, of course she was rebellious, they were Jehovah's witnesses. Most of us would be rebellious in that situation. Her ex-boyfriend talked about her liking cars and motorcycles, many people like cars and motorcycles. But it's presented as being suggestive of an inherently flawed personality.
She talked about being tortured in an ISIS jail under suspicion of being an American spy. That was substantiated but the interviewer still portrayed it as suspect. The little boy who was purchased as a slave regarded her as his surrogate mother and said that she was very kind to him and that he wanted to be near her.
The girl who was purchased as a slave, said that Sam told her she wouldn't be a slave and that she would be treated as a daughter. She viewed it as a rescue. The girl said that Moussa beat Samantha and abused her. The fact that Moussa also raped the girl cannot be held against Samantha. If you blame her for bringing the girl into their home, consider what had happened to her until that time and what would have happened to her in other households. It was and is a horrible thing, but Samantha was acting out of compassion and wanted to help. She also substantiated the fact that Moussa beat Sam to the point of screaming. And her son Matthew referred to Moussa being violent and mentally unstable.
Every point the interviewer raises, talking about her story unraveling and viewing everything with suspicion, each one of those points can be explained. She made a very poor choice in getting together with Moussa but that doesn't prove that she intended to help ISIS. All that it proves is bad judgment. We don't know how much she knew about where they were going. She was married to the man, she had a child with him and at that point she probably trusted him.
With respect to the videos the interviewer raised as though they proved certain guilt, it is entirely credible that she didn't pay much attention to what they were watching. It's reasonable that she went shopping or did something different while he was watching videos with his friends. The culture that he came from doesn't encourage men and women socializing together. It would have been viewed as odd for her to sit with them and watch whatever videos they were watching.
The part of this that I find most objectionable is the interviewer's approach. Frontline generally does an excellent job but here there is the building of a case with each piece of information presented as more damning evidence. However, when you look at it, each point can be explained. But when she tries to explain, he presents it as though she is lying. By the time you reach the end of the video you're ready to lock her up and throw away the key.
At the end the interviewer tells us that she is lying, that she won't accept her guilt but he puts her in untenable position by asking her to say something that contradicts the terms of the plea agreement. She can't do that, if she does the plea agreement could be withdrawn.
I don't know if she is guilty, I don't know what she knew or when she knew it. We know that she exercised poor judgment. We can say for certain that she should have known things that she might not have known due to the kind of relationship she was in and the culture of the man she was married to. She shouldn't have been willing to move money illegally, but this is something that many people do and it doesn't prove intent to support ISIS, it proves bad judgment.
I've written this not because I find her to be sympathetic, but because I found the interviewer's approach to be lacking in objectivity and unnecessarily condemnatory. It is wrong on his part to offer hearsay and opinions from people who have an ax to grind as solid evidence while viewing her explanations as suspect and instructing the audience to do the same.
6
-
6
-
"The unborn' are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn.
You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe.
Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."
Methodist Pastor David Barnhart
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
This is a video about this specific population, why would you feel left out? Do you work cleaning offices at night? Are you able to speak English well and communicate? Are you an immigrant, legal or otherwise?
If you're not, why would you feel left out of the conversation? Of course it doesn't happen to people of color only, but the video is about this specific situation which predominantly happens to people of color. It happens to people of color because they are easily taking advantage of. These are women who don't speak English well, who lack familiarity with the legal system, who come from countries where women often have fewer rights. They are easy prey for these and other reasons.
That doesn't mean that other women aren't also raped and harassed. If there is one constant in our society it is that women, regardless of social status, are treated badly.
If this were a video about your specific situation would you be open to every other group commenting that it doesn't represent them? Can every video represent everyone at the same time?
How can a video about poor Hispanic women working working the night shift cleaning offices be about you unless you are in that group? Based on what you're saying it's not valid to ever talk about any specific problem if it doesn't include every other group and every other problem.
Attention to their specific situation doesn't negate or diminish yours or anyone else's. Why would you feel that it does?
In an ideal world we would want to work together, we wouldn't begrudge attention given to one group nor would we view it as coming at our expense. Your perspective is zero-sum, the gains of one group come at the expense of another but it isn't another group, women are women, all of us together.
4
-
This is what happens when healthcare is a for-profit industry. What has to happen here for people to understand that healthcare should never have been for profit?
I've heard the argument that doctors won't stay and work in the US If everyone has health insurance. That simply isn't true. Doctors in countries with universal healthcare make a good living. I lived in two countries with universal health care. In one the base salary for a newly fledged doctor was the equivalent of $130,000. That is a very decent salary for someone starting in their career. Bear in mind too that there is no student loan repayment in that country. When you factor that in, the starting salary is closer to $150,000. The other country had a similar starting salary, slightly lower but offered additional incentives.
We don't blink at the idea of our taxes being used for the maintenance of roads and bridges. We expect a good education at public schools and we use the postal service every day when our mail is delivered. We expect the fire department to respond when there is a fire and police to be there in an emergency. Most regard these as essential services, necessities that everyone helps pay for.
Why is healthcare any different? Universal health care was almost a part of the Social Security Act of 1935. President Roosevelt was accused of a lot of things, including attempting to foist a socialist plot upon the country. A plot to ensure that everyone gets healthcare and that most of the money you spend will actually go to care rather than to insurance companies. Imagine the United States being like every other nation, where people don't have to decide between paying their electric bill and buying medicine or trying to decide if they can keep going with an abscess in their mouth.
Healthcare for everyone isn't charity or a free ride. It is an essential service, a necessity, just like infrastructure and school, police and firefighters. No child should have the teeth rotting out of her mouth because her parents work in a warehouse instead of a desk job. Look at the punitive undertones, so many of us believe that if you don't go to college and get the right kind of job, you deserve a lesser existence, you deserve to lack things like basic dental care. Examine that belief If you share it or any part of it. If a job needs to be done, if it is worth it to the company to hire a person to do that job on a full-time basis, they deserve to have their basic needs met like anyone else.
We live in a society. Unless you are off the grid, you rely on those around you as they rely on you. We share rights and responsibilities and in a healthy society people understand that everyone benefits when people get what they need.
4
-
This is not a useful comment. You're phrasing it as a question when it's clear from context that you believe you already know the answer. You believe unwanted pregnancies are "infinitely avoidable" those were your words. Unfortunately, you're wrong. Birth control can fail. Easily and it routinely does.
It's clear from context that you believe that responsibility should fall solely on the shoulders of the woman. Interesting, where's the man's responsibility? The pill has awful side effects and it can fail. Condoms routinely fail. The IUD can damage a woman internally and it too fails. Men misrepresent their use of a condom, there's a meme out there about pulling it off because it's more enjoyable for men that way. Where is your indignation, your rage when a man considers his pleasure above the health and well-being of his partner?
We don't provide sufficient education on birth control and we don't provide birth control. People will have sex, whether they are ready for it, whether they should or shouldn't is not the question. Maybe it should be but human nature is what it is. Let's deal with reality rather than an ideal situation while working towards that ideal. In the meantime, people will have sex. What do we do? What do we do about it, how do best ameliorate negative outcomes?
The solution to the question is first, education. We have to provide better sex education. Second, making birth control available to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Third, better birth control. As it stands now the onus is on the woman and it should be shared more equally. Fourth, making abortion safe and legal so that it can be done as early as possible where necessary.
Understand, no one is pro-abortion. That framing belongs to the anti-choice movement. They position themselves as pro-life when they aren't. What's the opposite of pro-life, anti-life? Pro death? No one who is in favor of choice is pro-abortion. No one wants to go have an abortion, no one celebrates it.
While we're here, let's talk about spontaneous abortions. You must be aware that many fertilized eggs don't make it. A woman's body spontaneously terminates many pregnancies early on for a variety of reasons. What's next, do we criminalize women for that too? What would be the legal argument? You subconsciously didn't want the pregnancy that you didn't know you had and your body rejected it and somehow you are responsible and must be held culpable?
The anti-choice movement is not consistent. They don't care about life, if they cared about life they would care about it after it exits the womb. They would care about it in other circumstances. They would be against guns, guns end lives. They would care about healthcare, housing, education and food. Many children die for lack of healthcare. Many more get sick for lack of healthy food.
The anti-choice movement is not active in any of these areas. That leads you to rationally conclude that the primary purpose is controlling women. Use your logical faculties, think about this question, reject what you've been taught to believe.
3
-
3
-
@critter4004 I figured there would be a snarky comment about an essay or novella. I was certain you would do that and you didn't disappoint. Everything I said was accurate, reading is not work, if it's an effort for you to read something or if it takes time, that isn't a problem I have. It's a choice you make.
Reread your response to the original comment. Do you not see how you came across? The first thing you say is "what was your diet." Then the word simply, you simply avoided sugars and starches and for that reason do not have tooth decay. That was all you had to say to the person who has no teeth and is suffering. No compassion, no questions, just judgment and assumptions about their diet with more about your own experience. Your experience is anecdotal, you suggested that all they had to do is do what you did and everything would be great when that isn't accurate. How does that help them when they are already in this situation? All they had to do was not eat sugars and starch, and that helps them now how? It doesn't. All it does is serve as an opportunity for you to point out what you believe to be their bad choices without knowledge as to whether they made those choices or if they knew better.
That's what prompted my essay. The thing you should do is go back and reread your comment, understand how it came across and try to do better next time. You don't have to acknowledge that to me, that isn't the point.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
How do you tell yourself that it's okay to comment or even think this way?
Rape isn't and has never been about sex with the hottest woman. Rape is about power, violence and domination. While the specifics vary, it's generally a man who is angry, who feels that he is owed something he isn't getting. A man who feels entitled and believes that women are inferior or stupid. A man who frequently lacks empathy for others, especially women.
The fact that you referred to the women as "these creatures" and sneered that no one would want to rape them speaks to your frame of mind, how you view women and the world in general. This is something you can change. I hope you do try to change it, for your own benefit and the benefit of those around you.
With respect to the anti-Hispanic/immigration aspect of your comment, who do you think is going to do these jobs? They need to be done and you aren't signing up to clean offices at night. What's your solution, after you deport them, who will do the work? Also these men are not more likely to commit rape than white men are. You're being dishonest if you say that this population commits more crimes, they don't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Miracle, if you happen to be monitoring this video and reading comments, please listen.
I survived a background that is different from yours but similar in many respects. There is a lot that I had to handle on my own including medical issues resulting from things that were done.
I was in boarding schools and ended up on my own when I was 15. I went to University in a different country then came back here and went to law school.
I had very little help. I took out student loans for law school and worked several jobs at a time in order to keep myself going. I didn't have family at all.
You are intelligent and driven. Let your family be in your life to the extent that seems wise to you. Love them, let them care about you but also be aware that people do things for reasons that can be confusing even to them. Your mother might try to deter you from pursuing the things that you want to pursue. Don't let anyone derail you.
A video like this one only tells part of the story. Your mother seems to genuinely love you and wants you to succeed. I don't think there is a person watching this who would feel differently.
It will be difficult but you can do it. There will be times when it will feel as though you can't, don't give up. Treat yourself well, you matter. Don't ever let the world make you believe differently. There are some genuinely decent people out there who will help you but it is not true that most people are good. Being good is the right choice but it is the more difficult choice.
The truth is that most people will do the right thing if it doesn't cost them anything. They will do the right thing if it is convenient. This doesn't make them bad, but it can result in actions that are wrong.
Try to pick people who will make the right choices even if it isn't convenient for them. Understand human nature, understand that there will be times where you will fail even after working hard but that doesn't define you. Your family and your upbringing don't define you either, you define yourself. Your intelligence, drive and compassion for others will define you.
Make the right choices. Pick a career that will let you take care of yourself and do some good for others. Derive satisfaction from accomplishing things. Because there are things that are outside of our control, it is even more important to take the power that we have and use it to build the best life that we can.
1
-
1
-
1