Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:those who try and present themselves as "neutral." Of course, these are the most dangerous sorts. And pathetic. It's like the mainstream media (a fake term but we can use it here for ease of understanding): they pretend like it's reasonable to present right-wing and neoliberal ideas as if they are equal to or just as reasonable as policies that would obviously help people and are democratically called for.
Dmitri wrote:I guess I'm supposed to be one ofIan C. Kuzushi wrote:those who try and present themselves as "neutral." Of course, these are the most dangerous sorts. And pathetic. It's like the mainstream media (a fake term but we can use it here for ease of understanding): they pretend like it's reasonable to present right-wing and neoliberal ideas as if they are equal to or just as reasonable as policies that would obviously help people and are democratically called for.
Thanks for highlighting my point, by completely refusing to see past your beautiful, righteous nose.
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Dmitri wrote:I guess I'm supposed to be one ofIan C. Kuzushi wrote:those who try and present themselves as "neutral." Of course, these are the most dangerous sorts. And pathetic. It's like the mainstream media (a fake term but we can use it here for ease of understanding): they pretend like it's reasonable to present right-wing and neoliberal ideas as if they are equal to or just as reasonable as policies that would obviously help people and are democratically called for.
Thanks for highlighting my point, by completely refusing to see past your beautiful, righteous nose.
You call it a sense of righteousness, I just think it's a well considered position that I was once not as confident in. I used to more or less think as Steve does in this thread. But, I now realize that anti-abortion laws are not actually morally based, even if some people think they are.
I agree that it should be case by case. But, what you seem to fail to recognize is that's how it plays out without abortion restrictions. It will be case by case based on what the woman and doctor decide. Some women might take input from their partners, others don't have that option or may not want to. Bringing up worst-case scenario theoreticals (as Oragami Itto pointed out, these are almost always--perhaps always--theoretical) in order to falsely complicate the matter just so you can stand above and from afar the fray only gets in the way of what will actually happen on the ground to real people.
As for Windy and his typically asinine comments: you have never defended anyone's freedoms by serving in the United States military, especially if you served after WWII. Get over yourself. It's sad that so many people I know who served in the military make that their entire identity. Plenty don't, but they usually have accomplished things after the service. I have nothing against poor folks who serve to better their lives. But, a lot of people I know who were officers or came from decent homes should have known better than to join one of the modern era's most oppressive and environmentally destructive forces.
Now that SCOTUS has stripped this right, the door is open to stripping other rights. Contraception is on the table, for example. Well, that tells you right there they don't really care about "life." Again, it's about control. What more will the Court do? Well, they have signaled that they are likely to enable the states to ignore the democratic process hastening the demise of our already fractured democracy.
Edit: I also would like to add: The ridiculousness of again playing "Mr. Neutrality" by equating "woke" with "theocrats" is mindboggling. First, I'm not really all that woke in the pejorative sense in which you meant it. I am not for the excesses of cancel culture, nor do I go for performative gestures for their own sake as we see so often carried out by corporations and even the CIA these days (their hiring campaigns are pretty bonkers). But, even if I were the wokest of the woke, how the hell could you compare that to the starkly anti-democratic right who are making massive progress in turning back the clock, oppressing voters, seeking to destroy the environment, defending corporations as people, etc, etc, etc...This is just another example of how playing the "middle road" is just bullshit. What are woke people doing that comes anywhere close to what the right is doing? What is the left doing that comes close? Trying to fight for a living wage? Universal healthcare? Education? The environment? Yeah, real shitbags, huh?
I ain't impressed.
Martin Luther King Jr wrote:Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
Steve James wrote:Imo, it's not helpful to define people. It's better to ask someone directly. Otherwise, they just become accusations that people want to defend. I think Ian and Dmitri agree on many specific issues. The debate about neutrality concerning abortion is moot because there are girls and women have no choice to be neutral when they're pregnant.
Fwiw, I think the words "neutral" and "sides" are misused because they're applied to political parties. I agree someone can complain about Rs and Ds, as if they were above both of them. But, no one really cares about that position.
If there were no parties, people would still have to vote. If someone is totally against any abortion for any reason, say so; and vice versa. There is also the option to be against some abortions, and that's not being neutral on abortion. Otoh, I think for men this is philosophical debate, when the question is a woman's control over her own body.
Steve James wrote: Otoh, I think for men this is philosophical debate, when the question is a woman's control over her own body.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 61 guests