4 ms·

I can't speak for original poster. But in 2018 - fascism, authoritarianism and break down of political discourse were very alarming. Now in 2022, we see it is l

I can't speak for original poster. But in 2018 - fascism, authoritarianism and break down of political discourse were very alarming. Now in 2022, we see it is likely Roe vs Wade gets overturned. The basis of that argument works for throwing out civil rights, contraception and voting rights. There are already moves in some states to make abortion murder and so punishable by death. And that's not even getting into the attempted coup. I'd say that's all pretty terrifying. I think I'd agree that in 2018, if you were paying attention, that the 'smell' was that's where we were heading. Now we are here.

immigrantheart 4y ago
To be fair, people who are on the other side of the proverbial fence issue across you also see the same problem.
- freddybobs 4y ago
  No 'they' don't. And prefixing with 'to be fair' is sadistically hilarious in context. To clarify. There are people who want fascism. Who want authoritarianism. Who are purposefully breaking political discourse. Who think women should be forced to have babies even if there is incest and rape. That if they get an abortion they could potentially get the death penalty. That white people are superior. That overthrowing the democracy is good (if they are doing the overthrowing). And on and on... So no and 'to be fair', 'the other side of the proverbial fence' absolutely do not 'also see the same problem.'
  - tiahura 4y ago
    To be fair, have a beer and chill out.
    - hedora 4y ago
      I don't see how drinking will prevent the US from continuing to slide into an apartheid-style government. Unlike with apartheid, educated city dwellers are being oppressed by plutocrats and the willfully ignorant. Heck, rednecks can already drive across state lines with the intent of shooting some townies, then get off by claiming self defence.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    Would you call that a new problem, or something with old roots? Nonetheless, the point of smelling points of no return is valid for all situations, where you can see looming crises but at the same time a provisionally livable state and "doom not fully scheduled".
  - immigrantheart 4y ago
    This is why we are divided now. So be it then.
gonehome 4y ago
> “The basis of that argument works for throwing out civil rights, contraception and voting rights.” I don’t think this is true? I’m in favor of women having the right to abortion, but my understanding of the anti-abortion steelman position is that it stems from defending individual rights of the unborn (basically fetal personhood). That doesn’t really apply to restricting any of these other rights - it’s a special case (if anything it should be an argument for increasing availability of contraception). The real discussion should be about that bit imo, but both camps are often talking past each other without engaging on the core disagreement. For example, the bodily autonomy argument falls flat if you believe the unborn have individual rights that are being violated.
- dataangel 4y ago
  The leak contains logic that deletes the rights to privacy and bodily autonomy completely. It can absolutely be generalized to saying contraception bans are constitutional.
  - tiahura 4y ago
    What about the bodily autonomy of the baby flushed down the toilet? You’re avoiding the point of the parent. There is nothing crazy about saying something that has its own elbows, asshole, DNA, brainwaves, and beating heart is a person and deserves protection. It’s quite a leap to get from that to banning condoms.
    - hedora 4y ago
      The leaked opinion specifically states that, despite nullifying the legal arguments that prevent bans on consensual sex acts, gay marriage, civil rights and privacy, this ruling is not rolling those rights back yet.

immigrantheart 4y ago

To be fair, people who are on the other side of the proverbial fence issue across you also see the same problem.

freddybobs 4y ago
No 'they' don't. And prefixing with 'to be fair' is sadistically hilarious in context. To clarify. There are people who want fascism. Who want authoritarianism. Who are purposefully breaking political discourse. Who think women should be forced to have babies even if there is incest and rape. That if they get an abortion they could potentially get the death penalty. That white people are superior. That overthrowing the democracy is good (if they are doing the overthrowing). And on and on... So no and 'to be fair', 'the other side of the proverbial fence' absolutely do not 'also see the same problem.'
- tiahura 4y ago
  To be fair, have a beer and chill out.
  - hedora 4y ago
    I don't see how drinking will prevent the US from continuing to slide into an apartheid-style government. Unlike with apartheid, educated city dwellers are being oppressed by plutocrats and the willfully ignorant. Heck, rednecks can already drive across state lines with the intent of shooting some townies, then get off by claiming self defence.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  Would you call that a new problem, or something with old roots? Nonetheless, the point of smelling points of no return is valid for all situations, where you can see looming crises but at the same time a provisionally livable state and "doom not fully scheduled".
- immigrantheart 4y ago
  This is why we are divided now. So be it then.

gonehome 4y ago

> “The basis of that argument works for throwing out civil rights, contraception and voting rights.” I don’t think this is true? I’m in favor of women having the right to abortion, but my understanding of the anti-abortion steelman position is that it stems from defending individual rights of the unborn (basically fetal personhood). That doesn’t really apply to restricting any of these other rights - it’s a special case (if anything it should be an argument for increasing availability of contraception). The real discussion should be about that bit imo, but both camps are often talking past each other without engaging on the core disagreement. For example, the bodily autonomy argument falls flat if you believe the unborn have individual rights that are being violated.

dataangel 4y ago
The leak contains logic that deletes the rights to privacy and bodily autonomy completely. It can absolutely be generalized to saying contraception bans are constitutional.
- tiahura 4y ago
  What about the bodily autonomy of the baby flushed down the toilet? You’re avoiding the point of the parent. There is nothing crazy about saying something that has its own elbows, asshole, DNA, brainwaves, and beating heart is a person and deserves protection. It’s quite a leap to get from that to banning condoms.
  - hedora 4y ago
    The leaked opinion specifically states that, despite nullifying the legal arguments that prevent bans on consensual sex acts, gay marriage, civil rights and privacy, this ruling is not rolling those rights back yet.