5 ms·

> tropes only diminish your credibility. And yet there is a reason the discussion here barely touches on women. We know how the demographics of HN skew, and th

> tropes only diminish your credibility. And yet there is a reason the discussion here barely touches on women. We know how the demographics of HN skew, and that creates a huge bias in the discussion here. We shouldn't naval gaze through this debate, and instead recognize that of the hundreds of comments here going in circles about stealing kidneys, hypothetically poisoning people, and hypothetical lives born or dying, there are real people who are actually in harms way right now due to laws being passed. > There has been virtually no appetite to discuss the women who have had negative abortion experiences over the last 50 years There's definitely an appetite, but is there space? It's certainly not created here. > it's such a serious topic that it deserves a dispassioned treatment. Maybe it deserves a dispassionate treatment (I'm certainly not going to provide that), but certainly not a myopic one. The high-minded philosophical arguments here miss the forest for the trees in my opinion. > It's pretty hard to believe Republicans in general are coming for things like gay marriage when 55% of Republicans approve of it per a 2022 Gallup poll Republicans "in general" aren't who I'm talking about; I'm talking about politicians. If you haven't noticed, gerrymandering has created a situation where Republicans can choose their voters, so they remain in power no matter how extreme their positions. Maybe also flying under your radar is a complete disdain among many Republicans for the concept of elections and democracy as a concept. Perhaps you haven't noticed that the Supreme Court will soon decide on a case that determines whether state legislatures are able to have complete control, without judicial review, of their election results? Frankly, it doesn't matter what Republicans writ large want. The extremists have taken control of the party, and they are stacking the deck to make sure they never have to lose an election again. Last time they lost an election they literally plotted and attempted to execute a coup. Now they are trying to make what they did in 2020 legal. What do you think happens next? Genuine question there.

smsm42 4y ago
> so they remain in power no matter how extreme their positions If you watched actual Republican primaries, as opposed to reading about scary Republicans on Twitter, you'd see this is wildly inaccurate - there is substantial variety among Republican positions, and there are things which different Republican voters (gasp! Republicans voter can differ!) are willing and not willing to tolerate. Which kinda would be expected from a party uniting tens of millions of people, if you think about it a bit... > Maybe also flying under your radar is a complete disdain among many Republicans for the concept of elections and democracy as a concept. This is also wildly false - if anything, Republicans are very upset right now exactly because they feel the concept of elections is under attack. Whether it is true or not, it's exactly the opposite of what would happen if they disdained the concept of elections. > and they are stacking the deck to make sure they never have to lose an election again This canard is dusted off on every election, and it is as false today as it was first time when it was invented. Nobody is ensuring "they never have to lose an election again", however sweet that may sound to a partisan ear, and it's not possible for Republicans even more given that Democrats almost exclusively control large population centers. Yes, there are places where Republicans routinely win (as there are places where Democrats routinely win) - it's not a nefarious conspiracy, it's a demographic fact. But this will never become everywhere, elections in the US in general has always been competitive, and remain so. > Last time they lost an election they literally plotted and attempted to execute a coup. No they did not. They had a protest. Which led to nothing except Democrats trying to milk it for the last drops of that sweet partisan outrage juice for the last year and a half. That's all there was. > Now they are trying to make what they did in 2020 legal. What they did in 2020 - namely protesting - already is legal. What some of them did - like fighting with the police, stealing things and vandalizing things - is not legal, and nobody is trying to make it legal. > What do you think happens next? Genuine question there. Next there will be 2022 elections where Democrats suffer some serious drubbing due to Presidential party routinely suffering drubbing in the midterms, compounded by dismal performance of the current President and generally unfavorable surrounding conditions. Some Democrats (not the smartest ones) will scream the democracy is dead in the US and fascism has been finally installed, and this is the last elections ever. Then there would be 2024 elections as usual, with the usual appropriate screaming and running around from parties involved. I have no idea who would win, but I am sure it'd be as close as ever, and whatever party wins, the other party would claim the election has been stolen and the democracy in the US has ended and fascism has been installed. The democracy will continue as it did for the last 250 years.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  - fundad 4y ago
    The siege on the Capitol was 2021. That's when people were fighting with police but people convinced themselves that protestors in 2020 weren't beaten, gassed nor arrested by the busload.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      > The siege on the Capitol was 2021. Lol "siege". Is there no end to the hyperbole? > That's when people were fighting with police but people convinced themselves that protestors in 2020 weren't beaten, gassed nor arrested by the busload. Who are "people" that don't believe (m/any) protestors were beaten, tear-gassed, or arrested in 2020? I'm sure there are some nuts out there, but I don't think many people on any side of the issue would seriously argue that out of the millions of people who were protesting all over the country (amid bona fide riots) that there were no instances of excessive use of force by police toward protestors. This seems like nut-picking.
  - smsm42 4y ago
    Indictments do not prove anything - indictment is just an opinion of people at DOJ, controlled by the party that wants to punish those people. All while ignoring much more harmful and violent protests both in DC and all over the country, all while they are being described as "mostly peaceful". There was no "coup attempt", and the protest didn't even get nearly as violent as many protests were in 2020. People going into government buildings happened many times before - including occupying them for many days, disrupting the proceedings, and even setting government buildings on fire. It's not a good thing, to be sure, but by the standards of what we've seen in the last decade, even the last couple of years, this protest was pretty tame. Only the partisan needs of the Democrats make them to inflate it into something it never has been.
    - 4y ago
scarmig 4y ago
> We know how the demographics of HN skew, and that creates a huge bias in the discussion here. I hazard to guess there is a huge skew in your social circles and media consumption. When was the last time you had an earnest discussion with a swing voter who leans pro-life? Note that I'm not talking about someone torn between voting Democrat or voting Green: I'm talking about someone who voted for Obama, then Trump, then was undecided on 2020. I'll hazard to guess you simply haven't: I have. Simply yelling at them for being white men is ineffective, particularly when they're nonwhite and female. And they're absolutely capable of handling philosophical arguments, and it's deeply condescending to define nonwhites and women as nonagents who would never to think about the philosophical underpinnings of a political position.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > I'll hazard to guess you simply haven't And you would be wrong, because that describes basically my entire family. I watch a lot of Fox News, I watch a lot of MSNBC. I read the WSJ, I read the WAPO. My friends are both conservative Christians and self proclaimed Marxists. I dated a super pro-life Catholic for a decade. What more do you want from me?
  - scarmig 4y ago
    Has your approach been effective at shifting their opinions?
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      Insofar as my actual approach is persuading using the experience of actual people rather than philosophical arguments, yes I've had success with that. It probably won't work with the people here, but the people here are very peculiar. What you see here on HN is not my attempt to persuade internet people. Does that ever work?
      - throwaway894345 4y ago
        I’m occasionally persuaded, but rarely by anecdotes. Most people lack critical thinking skills, this forum being something of an exception.

smsm42 4y ago

> so they remain in power no matter how extreme their positions If you watched actual Republican primaries, as opposed to reading about scary Republicans on Twitter, you'd see this is wildly inaccurate - there is substantial variety among Republican positions, and there are things which different Republican voters (gasp! Republicans voter can differ!) are willing and not willing to tolerate. Which kinda would be expected from a party uniting tens of millions of people, if you think about it a bit... > Maybe also flying under your radar is a complete disdain among many Republicans for the concept of elections and democracy as a concept. This is also wildly false - if anything, Republicans are very upset right now exactly because they feel the concept of elections is under attack. Whether it is true or not, it's exactly the opposite of what would happen if they disdained the concept of elections. > and they are stacking the deck to make sure they never have to lose an election again This canard is dusted off on every election, and it is as false today as it was first time when it was invented. Nobody is ensuring "they never have to lose an election again", however sweet that may sound to a partisan ear, and it's not possible for Republicans even more given that Democrats almost exclusively control large population centers. Yes, there are places where Republicans routinely win (as there are places where Democrats routinely win) - it's not a nefarious conspiracy, it's a demographic fact. But this will never become everywhere, elections in the US in general has always been competitive, and remain so. > Last time they lost an election they literally plotted and attempted to execute a coup. No they did not. They had a protest. Which led to nothing except Democrats trying to milk it for the last drops of that sweet partisan outrage juice for the last year and a half. That's all there was. > Now they are trying to make what they did in 2020 legal. What they did in 2020 - namely protesting - already is legal. What some of them did - like fighting with the police, stealing things and vandalizing things - is not legal, and nobody is trying to make it legal. > What do you think happens next? Genuine question there. Next there will be 2022 elections where Democrats suffer some serious drubbing due to Presidential party routinely suffering drubbing in the midterms, compounded by dismal performance of the current President and generally unfavorable surrounding conditions. Some Democrats (not the smartest ones) will scream the democracy is dead in the US and fascism has been finally installed, and this is the last elections ever. Then there would be 2024 elections as usual, with the usual appropriate screaming and running around from parties involved. I have no idea who would win, but I am sure it'd be as close as ever, and whatever party wins, the other party would claim the election has been stolen and the democracy in the US has ended and fascism has been installed. The democracy will continue as it did for the last 250 years.

ModernMech 4y ago
- fundad 4y ago
  The siege on the Capitol was 2021. That's when people were fighting with police but people convinced themselves that protestors in 2020 weren't beaten, gassed nor arrested by the busload.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    > The siege on the Capitol was 2021. Lol "siege". Is there no end to the hyperbole? > That's when people were fighting with police but people convinced themselves that protestors in 2020 weren't beaten, gassed nor arrested by the busload. Who are "people" that don't believe (m/any) protestors were beaten, tear-gassed, or arrested in 2020? I'm sure there are some nuts out there, but I don't think many people on any side of the issue would seriously argue that out of the millions of people who were protesting all over the country (amid bona fide riots) that there were no instances of excessive use of force by police toward protestors. This seems like nut-picking.
- smsm42 4y ago
  Indictments do not prove anything - indictment is just an opinion of people at DOJ, controlled by the party that wants to punish those people. All while ignoring much more harmful and violent protests both in DC and all over the country, all while they are being described as "mostly peaceful". There was no "coup attempt", and the protest didn't even get nearly as violent as many protests were in 2020. People going into government buildings happened many times before - including occupying them for many days, disrupting the proceedings, and even setting government buildings on fire. It's not a good thing, to be sure, but by the standards of what we've seen in the last decade, even the last couple of years, this protest was pretty tame. Only the partisan needs of the Democrats make them to inflate it into something it never has been.
  - 4y ago

scarmig 4y ago

> We know how the demographics of HN skew, and that creates a huge bias in the discussion here. I hazard to guess there is a huge skew in your social circles and media consumption. When was the last time you had an earnest discussion with a swing voter who leans pro-life? Note that I'm not talking about someone torn between voting Democrat or voting Green: I'm talking about someone who voted for Obama, then Trump, then was undecided on 2020. I'll hazard to guess you simply haven't: I have. Simply yelling at them for being white men is ineffective, particularly when they're nonwhite and female. And they're absolutely capable of handling philosophical arguments, and it's deeply condescending to define nonwhites and women as nonagents who would never to think about the philosophical underpinnings of a political position.

ModernMech 4y ago
> I'll hazard to guess you simply haven't And you would be wrong, because that describes basically my entire family. I watch a lot of Fox News, I watch a lot of MSNBC. I read the WSJ, I read the WAPO. My friends are both conservative Christians and self proclaimed Marxists. I dated a super pro-life Catholic for a decade. What more do you want from me?
- scarmig 4y ago
  Has your approach been effective at shifting their opinions?
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    Insofar as my actual approach is persuading using the experience of actual people rather than philosophical arguments, yes I've had success with that. It probably won't work with the people here, but the people here are very peculiar. What you see here on HN is not my attempt to persuade internet people. Does that ever work?
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      I’m occasionally persuaded, but rarely by anecdotes. Most people lack critical thinking skills, this forum being something of an exception.