Ali just did a great segment about that on MSNBC:
I knew there was a relationship, but I didn’t know there was such a straight line between them.
12 Likes
That is to say, you’re just asking questions?
The thing is, nobody here owes you an explanation. Most of us here aren’t interested in “understanding” the positions of the “other side”. These positions are responsible for, or are advocating for the death of you or people you care about. (It’s not just the so-called “abortion debate”, take your pick of any of the other terrible positions those on the right have). When someone is chasing you with a metaphorical knife and trying to kill you, you don’t pause to start an intellectual discussion to discuss and debate the motives. Maybe when those on the right stop actively trying to kill the rest of us they they perceive as a threat to their white Christofacist dominion, we can have nuanced discussions. (Even though I’m coming from a position of relative privilege compared to some others here, I definitely wouldn’t survive the purge.)
So, there’s no need to widen the Overton Window to make opinions stating that “a woman’s bodily autonomy should have an asterisk at the end” is acceptable discourse or something worthy of good faith debate. Nor is there any good faith debate to be had about the vast majority of other today’s right wing positions as they actively hurt and kill people, by design.
20 Likes
Who said somebody should be denied human rights, and what did they say exactly 
16 Likes
the first part explicitly so. alito in his opinion states that black women need to be protected from choosing abortion in order to prevent genocide. ie. they can’t be trusted to choose for themselves
re: the second. it’s an awful thing to realize but at least some of those kids won’t be born. black women have the highest maternal death rates out of all pregnant people. ( lack of available health care, lack of affordable health care, and outright medical racism being the reasons ) the more unplanned pregnancies, the more deaths
add in that the criminalization of abortion, miscarriages, and stillborn births will mean new tools to lock black and brown people away. and law enforcement will inevitably focus on those groups
this will also - like i think @DukeTrout mentioned - help keep low income families in poverty. another tool to widen the wealth gap. and that always hurts minority communities the most
racist in effect, and also for many proponents in intent
14 Likes
Can I ask you to clarify that? I read that and took it that you were paraphrasing the “conservative” talking points.
Others here have clearly taken it as you paraphrasing what you think those concerned by the proposed overturning of Roe v. Wade say.
Which is it?
8 Likes
On how well-behaved pro-abortion protesters should be for results:
11 Likes
Absolutely true, but IMHO, there is a need to widen the discussion to “Everyone who believes these terrible things statistically speaking cannot all be monsters, so how did they arrive at this decision and support these policies, and how do we turn the ones that aren’t monsters around?”
5 Likes
It’s a nice sentiment, but is it even possible to know the difference these days? The right isn’t known for their intellectual curiosity — if anything they seem to pride themselves on not thinking critically. I can only explain still believing in the right’s social positions in this day and age as willful and malignant malice. Which is why I rarely even try to debate these things anymore. Perhaps that makes me part of the problem, but I’m ok with that. (Yes, I am aware in the hypocrisy of this viewpoint.)
12 Likes
I’m not sure that’s precisely the right question. Because some definitely are monsters. Anyone who actively works toward forcing women who have been raped to carry the resulting fetus to term is a monster.
Then you have self-serving politicians who enable the monsters, even if they themselves don’t believe that the government should torture and kill women. That much selfishness is pretty monstrous.
What’s left are the voters who keep voting these assholes into office. If they aren’t monsters, and I’ll accept that premise, how do we get them to stop just voting for whoever is wearing the (R) jersey and actually look at candidates based on policy instead?
Because we’re not going to change the monsters’ minds. But we might open some people’s eyes enough to shake off the GQP glamour.
15 Likes
I think that it is important to make the distinction between “monsters” and “people who do monstrous things.” Not to absolve the latter, but to see clearly that a lot of people are just plain shitty in a way that does not require dissection to understand because there just isn’t that much depth to it.
In the end, though, I judge people on what they do, not who they are.
5 Likes
This is an odd use of statistics. Checking, it looks like more than 1/4 of the free families in the Confederacy owned slaves. Is that too many to regard slave-owners as monsters or not? I suspect it’s the wrong question.
15 Likes
i personally think that’s done by being intolerant of harmful views and actions.
when people find that their behavior isn’t acceptable – when people are shown clear boundaries – then yeah, they might be angry. but so what? it’s not going to kill them if they feel bad about their decisions. if later they decide to stop being angry and start being curious… when they start to ask honest questions… that’s the time to engage with them again.
it’s not necessary to change anyone’s mind. it’s only necessary to change their bad behavior. if they change their behavior because they’ve changed their mind… sure that’s great. but it’s not essential.
imo, it’s just like the forum. you establish those boundaries. you tell them they’ve got to go when they break them repeatedly or egregiously. if later they learn the lesson, make a new account, and work within the guidelines… i’d doubt anyone would see the need to kick them out again.
it’s okay, and even good where there are consequences for people’s actions. i think that’s how people learn.
11 Likes
The “common sense” of a society, culture, or subculture has a lot to do with this. There are people who absolutely believe that forcing their religion on the rest of us is the right thing to do, morally. They believe they are on the side of justice and righteousness because they are bringing people Jesus - the exact same justification used to mass slaughter all sorts of people during the era of European imperialism. The exact same justification used to justify slaughtering the Jewish population of Europe. Let’s not forget that the wehrmacht wore the phrase “gott mit uns” on their belts. The British let a million Irish and millions of Indians starve because they believed that the “moral” thing to do was to impose strict work requirements with limited meals in the midst of some famines. Let’s not forget that uprising after uprising against colonial rule across Africa was met with brutal repercussions for those who rebelled (a forced march into the desert in Namibia, a harsh backlash and concentration camps after the Mau Mau uprising, brutal crackdowns for fighting against the French in North Africa, etc).
We talk about this shattering of a shared values as a postmodern problem, but the reality is that the postmodernist merely described the concept of moral relativism that typified the era of modernity. People in power retroactively justify their brutal actions that economically benefited them but physically decimated one group or another.
In theory, the constitution is meant to be that clear boundary that establishes the basic rights we’re all entitled to as human beings. The GOP has decided it only should be so for some. But apparently, we’re not supposed to think that’s monstrous, but we’re meant to show them empathy no matter what.
22 Likes
This thread is reminding me of all the rape trials where the perpetrator is presented as a fine upstanding citizen in so many ways, as if that means their crime shouldn’t be taken seriously. Who cares if you’re a star on the swim team, or going to a ‘good school’, or related to someone in law enforcement? And why doesn’t that mean you should be held to a higher standard, instead?
If someone repeatedly denies human and civil liberties to a majority of their fellow citizens, either directly or through their support of public officials, then how much their family loves them or what good they might do in their local community really doesn’t matter.
24 Likes
“There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.”
Terry Pratchett, Small Gods
We are all capable of creating beauty or horror but if you choose to treat somebody as something you can control you are already a monster.
18 Likes
Here’s the thing: overturning Roe goes against the wishes of 70% of the people of the US. But it’s worse than that. The trigger laws being enacted in GOP-led states are total bans that consider things like IUDs and ectopic pregnancy as “abortion.” That extreme interpretation is only supported by 8% of Americans. How are we supposed to have a conversation with people who think their tiny minority extremist position should be the law of the land?
20 Likes
12 Likes
IMHO, that’s not the people that matter. It’s the legions of others who are voting to support these positions without understanding the implications of that vote.
I mean, when you come down to it, look at what @Mindysan33 posted above about the history of monsterous positions and justifications. At some point, these were no longer acceptable positions to hold. How did they get there? When did public opinion turn away from those positions, and how? How do you reach those who don’t realize the full implications of what they were supporting?
That, to me, what the big takeaway from the NYT article in the first place.
6 Likes
