3 ms·
> Likewise there are no shadowy "Big Abortion" interests propping up that side of things, nor am I able to think of anyone poised to profit by forbidding it. I
by ARandomerDude 6y ago
> Likewise there are no shadowy "Big Abortion" interests propping up that side of things, nor am I able to think of anyone poised to profit by forbidding it.
In fact, there are numerous pro-life groups who directly benefit from moving the ball around but never actually winning the game.
The same is true of race relations organizations, animal cruelty activists, the NRA, etc. With all of these, the spoken platform may or may not be a good thing, but
the largest stakeholders would lose tremendous money and influence if they ever actually won.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- sk5t 6y agoYou're describing pretty standard "mission creep." I.e. "if the problem this organization exists to address is fixed, fundraising efforts stop and staff must be fired. But we don't want to fire people, so we must perpetually move the goalposts to keep the momentum going." MADD is the classic example here.
- koheripbal 6y ago> benefit from moving the ball around but never actually winning the game. This is exactly how you win elections. If you gain enough single-issue voters you never need to debate the complex issues that might split your base. It's important to portray the situation as if they are losing. Pro-Choice is a great example. Abortion-right are frequently portrayed as "under attack and imminently about to be destroyed" despite almost every SCOTUS judge publicly saying it's "settled law". It is a political form of George Orwell's endless war, and the ultimate distraction. Corporations don't need to fund them directly as politicians are happy to play this game so that corporations can fund THEM directly since the political attention is placed elsewhere.