4 ms·

>In the months and years to co come, ultra-conservatives aim to eliminate birth control and install an overbearing theocratic government. They are not shy about

>In the months and years to co come, ultra-conservatives aim to eliminate birth control and install an overbearing theocratic government. They are not shy about saying so[...] Since you were kind enough to provide references to your other statements of fact, would you mind doing the same for this one? Because I've been seeing that exact sentiment repeated ad nauseum for a long while now and yet every attempt I've made to figure out where it came from, so far, has been from the claimant imputing intent upon a nebulous Other, with all such claims assuming the most malicious version of a strawman possible... and we all know that's against the rules, here. The sole argument I've seen sourced, in this specific case, hinges upon a very uneducated misinterpretation of a (relatively unimportant) concurrent opinion by Justice Thomas in which the hyperbolic clearly don't understand the concepts of "substantive due process" and are mixing it up with something else entirely.

specialist 4y ago
Libertarians (reactionaries) took over the GOP, kicking out the conservatives. Koch, who is an atheist, et al allied with evangelicals to accomplish this. Time will tell who will be left standing, the theocrats or the reactionaries. There are many exposés, books, articles, etc. Here are two of the more recent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Chains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Chains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money
- jimmygrapes 4y ago
  These concepts I am familiar with, but both of these sources suffer from the same problem: third parties presuming and ascribing intent. Sure they might be correct eventually, and as you say, only time will tell. But I ain't overly interested in the opinions of third party, hyperbolic sooth sayers with axes to grind. If someone is going to claim a fact one way or the other, let's be factual all around. Assumption and doubt-casting may sell books, but they don't really persuade me.
  - specialist 4y ago
    > ...but they don't really persuade me. What measure of proof do you require? Democracy in Chains' primary source are a cache of documents from economist James Buchanan's think tank, architects of the reactionary movement's strategy. By their own words and actions, they intend to end democracy and protect the rich. Disagree with the author's analysis, fine. But the thesis is not circumstantial, inferred, or speculated. Whereas Dark Money is a standard whodunnit. Investigative journalism, following the money, ferret out the criminal conspiracy. If you have a different interpretation of the evidence, please share.
  - philosopher1234 4y ago
    You need it spelled out for you? So if I tell you “I love you and would never hurt you” while beating the shit out of you, you’re going to think “hm, I can’t assume his intent, I bet he does love me!” Your argument is foolish.
bashinator 4y ago
The bit about banning birth control is directly from Clarance Thomas.
anigbrowl 4y ago
You could start with a roundup from this non-sensationalist nonprofit for an overview of legislative action. An example of a candidate publicly expressing opposition to any form of birth control would be Jacky Eubanks, a Republican candidate for Governor in Michigan. And I include one example of politically motivated religiosity for a longer historical perspective. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta... https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/6/4/1411/pdf#:~:text=Abstract%3A%20The%20Roman%20Catholic%20bishops,contraceptive%20access%20should%20be%20restricted https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/6/4/1411/pdf#:~:text=Abstract.... very uneducated misinterpretation of a (relatively unimportant) concurrent opinion by Justice Thomas in which the hyperbolic clearly don't understand Dude, when you're trying to shoehorn 5 dismissals into one sentence it's not conducive to discussion.

specialist 4y ago

Libertarians (reactionaries) took over the GOP, kicking out the conservatives. Koch, who is an atheist, et al allied with evangelicals to accomplish this. Time will tell who will be left standing, the theocrats or the reactionaries. There are many exposés, books, articles, etc. Here are two of the more recent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Chains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Chains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money

jimmygrapes 4y ago
These concepts I am familiar with, but both of these sources suffer from the same problem: third parties presuming and ascribing intent. Sure they might be correct eventually, and as you say, only time will tell. But I ain't overly interested in the opinions of third party, hyperbolic sooth sayers with axes to grind. If someone is going to claim a fact one way or the other, let's be factual all around. Assumption and doubt-casting may sell books, but they don't really persuade me.
- specialist 4y ago
  > ...but they don't really persuade me. What measure of proof do you require? Democracy in Chains' primary source are a cache of documents from economist James Buchanan's think tank, architects of the reactionary movement's strategy. By their own words and actions, they intend to end democracy and protect the rich. Disagree with the author's analysis, fine. But the thesis is not circumstantial, inferred, or speculated. Whereas Dark Money is a standard whodunnit. Investigative journalism, following the money, ferret out the criminal conspiracy. If you have a different interpretation of the evidence, please share.
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  You need it spelled out for you? So if I tell you “I love you and would never hurt you” while beating the shit out of you, you’re going to think “hm, I can’t assume his intent, I bet he does love me!” Your argument is foolish.

bashinator 4y ago

The bit about banning birth control is directly from Clarance Thomas.

anigbrowl 4y ago

You could start with a roundup from this non-sensationalist nonprofit for an overview of legislative action. An example of a candidate publicly expressing opposition to any form of birth control would be Jacky Eubanks, a Republican candidate for Governor in Michigan. And I include one example of politically motivated religiosity for a longer historical perspective. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta... https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/6/4/1411/pdf#:~:text=Abstract%3A%20The%20Roman%20Catholic%20bishops,contraceptive%20access%20should%20be%20restricted https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/6/4/1411/pdf#:~:text=Abstract.... very uneducated misinterpretation of a (relatively unimportant) concurrent opinion by Justice Thomas in which the hyperbolic clearly don't understand Dude, when you're trying to shoehorn 5 dismissals into one sentence it's not conducive to discussion.