4 ms·

Well a good first step would be to accept that societal changes take time to develop. We have made huge progress in areas such as women's rights. Asian immigran

Well a good first step would be to accept that societal changes take time to develop. We have made huge progress in areas such as women's rights. Asian immigrants, which were severely discriminated against in the past, have achieved tremendous upward mobility in our society. There are many other areas in which our society has progressed. All of this progress has occurred without any of the radical discrimatory tactics that are used today.

UncleMeat 5y ago
> We have made huge progress in areas such as women's rights. And suffragettes put bombs in mailboxes and threw their bodies under horses. 2nd wave feminists were far more "anti-man" than modern feminists (there aren't too many political lesbians nowadays). The "peaceful protest" that people recall so fondly rarely was so peaceful but is instead used as a cudgel to resist all change today by claiming that activists aren't "doing it right".
- FiberBundle 5y ago
  > And suffragettes put bombs in mailboxes and threw their bodies under horses And you think that had a positive effect on women's suffrage? > 2nd wave feminists were far more "anti-man" than modern feminists Well so what? Was suppressing men an actual tactic that contributed to progress?
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    The bombs in the mailboxes? Absolutely.
    - refurb 5y ago
      Violence rarely works politically unless you’re talking about revolution.
      - UncleMeat 5y ago
        In the UK, you can see a dramatic change in the response to suffrage activism after these sorts of things started. Decades of calm requests went nowhere.
        kortilla 5y ago
        No, terrorism did not work
        UncleMeat 5y ago
        Votes for women. It wasn't obtained through asking politely.
        kortilla 5y ago
        Those bombings didn’t result in votes for women at all. > The campaign was halted at the outbreak of war in August 1914 without having brought about votes for women, as suffragettes pledged to pause their campaigning to aid the nation's war effort. > The extent to which suffragette militancy contributed to the eventual enfranchisement of women in 1918 has been debated by historians, although the consensus of historical opinion is that the militant campaign was not effective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_bombing_and_arson_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_bombing_and_arson_...
benlivengood 5y ago
> We have made huge progress in areas such as women's rights. In the U.S. there is still a major fight for women's reproductive rights, with frequent backsliding (TX is the most extreme recent example). > All of this progress has occurred without any of the radical discrimatory tactics that are used today. Every step toward restoring human rights to marginalized groups has been labeled radical (because technically it is radical compared to the status quo) and must come at the expense of some privilege that others hold. Privilege, however, is not a human right and therefore not something inherently worthy of protection.
- zdragnar 5y ago
  That isn't about women's rights. One side argues it is about womens rights, that abortion is merely a medical procedure. The other side argues that the fetus (usually called "unborn") have independent heartbeats and unique DNA, and as such have their own right to life. That is why they use the term "pro-life".
  - pengstrom 5y ago
    If it really were about children's rights, then they would also be all for supporting families economically and putting resources into education. But they do not. The most probable explanation is still control over female reproduction.
    - angelzen 5y ago
      This conversation could be a whole lot less acrimonious if we were to acknowledge the core conservative position: the intact nuclear family is the primary locus of children's rights.
      - zdragnar 5y ago
        Why bother trying to understand your opponents position in good faith when it is so much faster and satisfying to just slander them? This seems to be the crux of our entire political situation as a country (has been for awhile, though certainly feels amplified the past 15 years).

UncleMeat 5y ago

> We have made huge progress in areas such as women's rights. And suffragettes put bombs in mailboxes and threw their bodies under horses. 2nd wave feminists were far more "anti-man" than modern feminists (there aren't too many political lesbians nowadays). The "peaceful protest" that people recall so fondly rarely was so peaceful but is instead used as a cudgel to resist all change today by claiming that activists aren't "doing it right".

FiberBundle 5y ago
> And suffragettes put bombs in mailboxes and threw their bodies under horses And you think that had a positive effect on women's suffrage? > 2nd wave feminists were far more "anti-man" than modern feminists Well so what? Was suppressing men an actual tactic that contributed to progress?
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  The bombs in the mailboxes? Absolutely.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Violence rarely works politically unless you’re talking about revolution.
    - UncleMeat 5y ago
      In the UK, you can see a dramatic change in the response to suffrage activism after these sorts of things started. Decades of calm requests went nowhere.
      - kortilla 5y ago
        No, terrorism did not work
        UncleMeat 5y ago
        Votes for women. It wasn't obtained through asking politely.
        kortilla 5y ago
        Those bombings didn’t result in votes for women at all. > The campaign was halted at the outbreak of war in August 1914 without having brought about votes for women, as suffragettes pledged to pause their campaigning to aid the nation's war effort. > The extent to which suffragette militancy contributed to the eventual enfranchisement of women in 1918 has been debated by historians, although the consensus of historical opinion is that the militant campaign was not effective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_bombing_and_arson_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_bombing_and_arson_...

benlivengood 5y ago

> We have made huge progress in areas such as women's rights. In the U.S. there is still a major fight for women's reproductive rights, with frequent backsliding (TX is the most extreme recent example). > All of this progress has occurred without any of the radical discrimatory tactics that are used today. Every step toward restoring human rights to marginalized groups has been labeled radical (because technically it is radical compared to the status quo) and must come at the expense of some privilege that others hold. Privilege, however, is not a human right and therefore not something inherently worthy of protection.

zdragnar 5y ago
That isn't about women's rights. One side argues it is about womens rights, that abortion is merely a medical procedure. The other side argues that the fetus (usually called "unborn") have independent heartbeats and unique DNA, and as such have their own right to life. That is why they use the term "pro-life".
- pengstrom 5y ago
  If it really were about children's rights, then they would also be all for supporting families economically and putting resources into education. But they do not. The most probable explanation is still control over female reproduction.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    This conversation could be a whole lot less acrimonious if we were to acknowledge the core conservative position: the intact nuclear family is the primary locus of children's rights.
    - zdragnar 5y ago
      Why bother trying to understand your opponents position in good faith when it is so much faster and satisfying to just slander them? This seems to be the crux of our entire political situation as a country (has been for awhile, though certainly feels amplified the past 15 years).