General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFuck your "pro-life" anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-white privilege arguments.
I'm for abortion being accessible anywhere by any woman anytime they want it.
Period.
All of your "pro-life" arguments boil down to one thing and one thing only:
You want to impose your religious mores and values system on the rest of the civilian population regardless of their beliefs.
I respect your right to have your idiosyncratic religious beliefs but don't force them on the rest of us as secular law.
Fuck your arguments against sensible gun control, background checks and regulation.
Some people should not have guns or access to them, period.
Fuck your arguments against the idea that our society has rigged the game against people of color.
Jim Crow is alive and well in this country even if he is not as obvious and prominently in your face as he used to be.
I'm sick of hearing all these politically Conservative cases made here at a liberal Democratic website.
If this is the cost of a "big tent" party, where we include and allow gun nuts, racists, anti-LGBT rights and anti-abortion zealots to argue against our core principles every fucking day, then that is too high a price to pay.
#nomoreDinos
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
dembotoz
(16,804 posts)kand r
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)Don't forget the anti union crowd who pops up every now and again.
TeamPooka
(24,226 posts)
brush
(53,778 posts)I am with you 100%
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)So no, it should not be allowed on any reasonable, let alone left-leaning, political website.
Leith
(7,809 posts)Don't believe nomorenomore08? Just take a look at Mediaite.com. The comments on that site are so vile that it looks like an infestation of vermin. I do NOT want that to happen here.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)but sadly many anti-union posts are allowed to stay here.
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)
Response to TeamPooka (Original post)
Tuesday Afternoon This message was self-deleted by its author.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)
MerryBlooms
(11,769 posts)
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)NOWHERE! The pro-life thing is more of a Catholic/Pope decree thing I think.
The Bible does say that you must stone your child to death if he insults you. Ironic.
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)their delusional minds, and if it's not in their bible they make some sh** up. Often the faithful are blinded by delusions, they don't give a F about facts.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Like Rand Paul the Aqua Buddha hardcore Libertarian as an example.
azureblue
(2,146 posts)In three places, and the church has long held, that life begins with "first breath". That is, when a fetus can breathe on its own, The church has also maintained that a fetus does not acquire a "soul" until birth, but that was once changed to after 30 days of life.
The best respond to a "pro lifer" is this: The Bible and God says that life begins at first breath. God said it and that settles it. All you are doing is ignoring God and making up your own rules."
pink-o
(4,056 posts)And if they want to quote their mythological text, then yes, that's what it says and therefore the bible does not condemn abortion.
But I think the whole "when does life begin?" argument is causing us to focus on the wrong aspects of anti-abortion. Let's face it: if a blastocyst is left alone, barring any health issue it will become a human with a soul. That's how the crazies counter the "life begins" debate. I believe we need to call them on their hypocricy:
They say pro-life, yet they restrict women's access to birth contol and sex education--which would prevent most abortions. If they meant what they said, every woman would have free Depo-Provera shots until she was ready to conceive a wanted child.
They say pro-life and scream about Welfare Queens, yet they force unprepared, uneducated women to have a child they can't provide for.
They say pro-life because they care so much about human beings, yet when that unwanted, abused child grows up and is in prison, they have no problem executing him.
They say pro-life because they love children so much, yet do we see them adopting unwanted kids or helping to reform the heinous hell-hole that is foster care?
They say pro-life because they love children so much, yet they do nothing to keep kids safe from guns. Three-year-olds shooting their siblings, high schools being shot up by other kids who should have NO ACCESS to firearms? How pro-life is that?
We will never win a debate arguing about when humans become what we are. And we don't need to: the facts and Fundie hypocricy speak for themselves.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I have to wonder why people come here at all when the only person they would appear to be comfortable talking to is themselves.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)the face of the OP.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)as to what precisely those values are, but I have no problem with the general idea.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)
billh58
(6,635 posts)Thank you for spelling it out so clearly, and I suspect that you speak for the majority of thinking American voters.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)if they are violating the TOS than report them; if they aren't, than you are basically saying don't want to see people disagreeing with you.
Bryant
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)so much for open minded. there are extremes to boths sides this is one of them. although yes the Pro Life crap just that CRAP. where's the anti abortion folks in any of the worlds where there is FORCED abortion , places American jobs go to. huh? About as Pro Life as Hitler is Pro Jew. okay if that offends anyone I'll remove it but I'm just sayin (PM me and I'll take it down. ) People like to use Hitler for alot of things but that one makes sense to me. (satire) Hello I'm Pro Life look at me I've got this AR-15 just killed 30 people oh but I'm Pro Life I didn't kill the fetuses...
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)or to a hypothetical anti-abortion person who follows all the right wing stereotypes including using AR-15s to gun down people?
I have mixed feelings about the practice of abortion, but strongly believe it should be legal and available to any woman who wants one.
Bryant
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)It's the folks who advocate forced birth, then expect credit for being "consistently pro-life" just because they're anti-death penalty and anti-war, who plain and simply don't belong on DU. And I will defend my position on that to the bitter end.
zazen
(2,978 posts)though it must always be safe and legal (and affordable and accessible). Not so sure I fit into the stereotype either?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)increase contraception use, both in terms of the number of people who use it and the more effectively they use it. I realize that a small percentage of human beings are truly asexual, but that isn't true of the vast majority. Birth control is also (obviously) not an issue for same-sex couples, but according to most estimates, about 90% of people are exclusively or predominantly heterosexual.
Unfortunately, I think we also all know that common sense isn't right-wingers' strong suit...
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)..."fuck you" is the first glaring sign that you are an intolerant jerk who cares little for conversation. While it might be true that the views in the OP may be part of a liberal mindset, I think some the OP has given the bird to deserves at least a hearing out from those who may disagree. You don't change a single person's mind about anything by giving them the middle finger, all you've done is put them on their heels and forced them into a defensive posture.
DU is lousy with people who think that shouting epithets at the moon and drawing lines in the sand is a way to change society for the better. I really do wish they'd think about just how ridiculous a concept that really is.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)You can read it here:
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform
Access to abortion- check. It's right there.
"Reasonable gun legislation"- check. I'm not sure I'd go so far as "pro gun", though. It also says this:
So we are definitely pro-gun, but we're also pro reasonable legislation.
Now, I can't find any mention of the term "white privilege". None. Not a single utterance. This is what it does say:
I think everyone on this forum is on board with that, regardless of whether we use the term "white privilege" to describe racial inequalities. So no, anyone who believes the above paragraph is a Democrat and is quite welcome on this site.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I'm not a mind-reader, nor do I advocate witch hunts, but a lot of posts (to me at least) have a distinctly un-progressive, un-Democratic flavor to them.
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)sometimes also to me to "have a distinctly un-progressive, un-Democratic flavor to them."
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Then there are those who manage to hang around for years despite not demonstrating much in the way of truly liberal or progressive views. Not that I'm advocating purity tests, but some things should be more or less non-negotiable - LGBT rights, reproductive rights, an at least superficial awareness of ingrained cultural racism.
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)
boston bean
(36,221 posts)But not with racists, misogynists, homophobics, etc. I have no interest in debating or teaching them a damned thing.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)TeamPooka
(24,226 posts)
Blue_Roses
(12,894 posts)I flinch when one of these topics (or other ones) pops up in a conversation. I have many southern relatives (yes, I too live in the south) who are content to live as if it was still 1960. While some of these people irritate the hell out of me, I still enjoy some aspects of their personality (or banana pudding).
To deal with it rather than have an endless argument, I try to approach the conversation as though they were afraid for their lives and that their ignorance on such particular topic is causing their fear. Gently. Then I began to pull out facts that they can overtly see and identify with on a daily basis. (Ex: taxes needed for paramedics and police protection; health care needed to live; etc.)
It also depends on who's worth the challenge, since some are so brainwashed nothing sinks in. It's a crap shoot, which is why it is far and few that I even attend these things
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)They are belong to us
bravenak
(34,648 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Member? You member.
Dr. Strange
(25,921 posts)
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)
Diamonique
(1,655 posts)
Bonx
(2,053 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)rtracey
(2,062 posts)VOTE 2014-2016....and help a neighbor vote... NO COMPLACENCY FOR DEMOCRATS..... GET OUT THE VOTE
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)When I interact with somebody who disagrees with me about some principle I have, I usually attempt to persuade them to my point of view as best I can, using stories, facts, logic, and compassion.
What you seem to have stated here, in simplest terms, is set of dogmas.
I believe X. PERIOD.
I believe Y. PERIOD.
I believe Z. PERIOD.
And note to those who disagree with me.
SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! and GO AWAY!
Is that, then, another one of your core principles? "Intolerance for other points of view?"
Now, I know, of course, that I am probably on some people's "ten most wanted" list. I am constantly arguing unpopular opinions and points of view.
But the fact remains that I have been a registered Democrat since I turned 26 in 1988.
The other fact remains, that many ELECTED Democrats are even to the right of ME, at least on some issues. Some Democrats voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq. I drove to Lawrence to protest it.
If you read my journal you'd see me calling out Governor Cuomo for cutting taxes for rich people, and calling out Obama for the same thing.
And then there are the Republicans. There are a lot of them in this country, and especially in my state, my district and my county.
If we want to win elections, we have to be able to reach people, to persuade people, to reason with people who are NOT part of the choir. We have to push back against the rightwing noise machine.
But we need to push back with facts, not with hate and intolerance.
When I joined DU in 2004, Bush had just been re-elected. I was devastated. I really thought my country was better than that. That my fellow Americans would reject Bush, his policies and his attitude and his wars, in no uncertain terms. I saw Kerry bumperstickers all over town and we could not keep yard signs in stock at headquarters. I naively, and hopefully, thought Bush was even gonna lose in Kansas.
The reality was brutal.
I needed some way to cope. I needed some friends. Some allies who would fight with me to take back our country. I hoped I would find those at DU.
And to some degree I did.
But to another degree, probably a much larger degree, I didn't. We seem to be at cross purposes rather than united. I would like to be part of a Left Wing Noise Machine, pushing back against the lies of the right. Like so http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3004566
Instead, often our message is only of hate and intolerance for those who disagree. Our noise machine only spreads this message to the non-choir - "hey voters, you are a bunch of racist, morons, and we hate your guts" "p.s. I hope you vote for our candidate"
As such, we might as well be part of the rightwing noise machine. All we do is help divide the bottom 80% so that the top 20% continues to win.
rustbeltvoice
(430 posts)i guess an additional notation is +1
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)In this case anyway.
I came here back in the Bush days as well. Dark times and pain lingers today. Seems like we are pissing away everything we have gained through infighting.
Congress is gone for the foreseeable future. Senate is up for grabs. Presidency will be interesting. President Obama has been stymied at every turn (almost - he has gotten a lot done despite congress) by congress so on it's own the presidency seems a Pyhrric victory.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Still naive and hopeful.
In 2012, we won in North Dakota.
Supposedly right now Brownback is losing in the polls - in Kansas.
We should be able to win in conservative districts. I think we need, though, a message to attract conservative voters, instead of so many messages wanting to drive them away. I think if we take a strong stand for the bottom 80%, that we can win a majority of voters.
80% is a HUGE majority dammit. BOTH parties should be scrambling to represent us. Instead neither party is, at the federal level.
Ah, but why should they, when they can keep us divided instead?
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)seats would seem a requirement.
Not sure how that happens with thinking like the OP's.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Because to do otherwise would be to treat a portion of the populace - over 50% in this case - as less than full human beings.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Now, you realize that there are many people in this country to whom that is very negotiable, and even others who think that position is morally reprehensible.
For these people, we require them to see our point of view. Why? Because nothing gets done in this country without the majority of people being on the same page. Hell, sometimes even THEN nothing gets done.
So we need to persuade. We still have to make the argument. We still have to go through the drudge of explaining the whys even though we're probably pretty tired and bored of it by now. We've all probably thought it at one time or another as to why we have to continue to fight this battle over and over again, why something so obviously reasonable needs continued defense.
Now, all that said.
Does "fuck you" really persuade? Even those amongst our own, there are people of devout religious character who believe that abortion is a morally indefensible act. Would you shout "fuck you" to them, and in the same breath support the right of the people of this country to worship and believe whatever religious dogma is to their liking? Or would you attempt to make your case with respect, and averring their rights to not only hold an opinion, but one which differs? If they are wrong, they need to know why, and "fuck you" really is short on the "why".
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)...if the results they achieve are roughly equal. I seriously doubt that this is true. Belligerency results almost always in a net negative. Most of the time it only serves as an exhaust port for the angered or frustrated, without actually being persuasive to the person upon whom the epithet is bestowed, rather quite the opposite, often.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)"Instead, often our message is only of hate and intolerance for those who disagree."
Yeah, I think that about sums it up.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)...every movement, every organization, even every loose group on people becomes a club where the most ideological and intolerant get on the membership and steering committees.
I believe that DU has achieved that critical age.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Because big tents are not wanted...eveyone should have their own tent so they will not be offended by any disagreement
But dived and we can be conquered buy those not divided...(the GOP) who never piss off their base by stirring up the shit day after day.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)
?lvh=1zeemike
(18,998 posts)No one should tell people to shut up, but clearly that is what the OP is saying...along with fuck you, I hate you, you don't belong here if you disagree.
I would far better like to see kittens than a fuck you post...kittens don't divide but fuck you does.
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)'
But seriously, I have seen people rant about animal threads in GD too.... So it isn't entirely "safe" to post teh kittehs either.
delete_bush
(1,712 posts)Note the avatar, started here over 10 years ago.
The "FUCK YOU!!!" chorus produces nothing positive in the real world, but there are those who apparently are only comfortable when not only preaching to the choir but chastising those who don't conform to their vision.
They remind me of spoiled little children who throw a fit when no one pays attention to them.
7962
(11,841 posts)You did say "anytime she wants it". You dont believe its a real human till it pops out?
If you want the Democratic Party to exclude anyone who wants reasonable time limits on abortion, you're going to be left with a pretty small group.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)are performed due to severe, often fatal (to the fetus) complications - in that case, I'd certainly say "late-term" abortion was the lesser evil at least.
But this is all a strawman anyway, because when people say shit like "reasonable time limits" what they really mean is women are too fucking stupid to know what's best for them!
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Who is the biggest killer of fertilized egg babies? GAWD!!!!!!
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)many people born with so many defects
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Hormones for lactation (same as with the Pill) stop ovulation, and can also cause short luteal phase (no/limited build up of uterine lining). IF ovulation does happen, the thin uterine lining cannot support a fertilized egg from implanting. The "egg baby" will be shed even in a slight strain of not a real period. This happened to me while nursing my 2 month old. Never would have know it if I didn't have a scheduled GYN exam right after. My doctor was able to see this and explained it to me. Sorry, but I didn't care about some "potential" zygote. My newborn, and my 3 year old, meant more to me. Apparently, not to the fanatics of the RTL. Once they pass the birth canal, they could give a crap about infants and children.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)to illegal, unsafe, even fatal means to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy - then I'm cool with that. Don't like it, tough fucking shit!
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)to all or nearly all abortions, in principle? But that they'll grudgingly "allow" women the first couple of months as a freebie?
If I've mischaracterized you, then I'm sorry. Maybe I'm not remembering things quite right.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)no woman should have to die to deliver a baby. if it were my baby and there was nothing wrong with the baby or the pregnancy i wouldnt want her to an abortion.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)of the person who's actually carrying the baby/fetus around. So long as you keep that in mind, you should be all right.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)we both made the baby and any abortion would have to be a decision made by both of us (assuming i knew anything about it). if she runs off and does it well there's nothing i can do about it.
it's my baby too and i would want to be a part of such a personal decision to us both. i dont think that's is too much to expect.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Your post seems to implicitly acknowledge as much, though, so I don't think we necessarily have a problem here.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Unless it is your body. You are not just secondary: you are insignificant, and so are your beliefs. 
is that so difficult to comprehend
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)it may be her body but it's our baby and that makes a baby/no baby decision ours. if she can impregnate herself all by herself then the decision is all hers and she can do what she wants.
7962
(11,841 posts)What part of that did you not understand? The OP made no distinctions for complications or anything else. You want an abortion at 38 weeks, fine, according to his/her opinion. And MOST people DONT think that.
"Strawman" my ass. That excuse is used anytime someone says something that somebody else doesnt like.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)would be likely to perform in the first place? I'm honestly starting to wonder if it's not largely just a general anti-choice bias on your part. Third-trimester abortions are virtually never performed except, as I said, in cases of severe complications. Don't believe me, that's your problem, not mine.
7962
(11,841 posts)OP never mentioned complications, just that any woman should have the choice. I do NOT think roe v Wade should be overturned. Is that clear enough? Read that raging OP and if the Democratic party were to adopt that entire attitude, we wouldnt win another election.
Every week we have some sort of "fuck you" thread on DU. Its like a bunch of kids who just learned how to cuss.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Who are capable of making decisions about their bodies and their lives without your input. If you cannot accept that reality, the Republicon party is your friend.
7962
(11,841 posts)Try to make me a misogynist all you want. Typical; when someone doesnt like the message they try to tarnish the messengers actual intent.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I think we should follow Canada's lead - ZERO laws/restrictions. None.
On January 28, 2014, Canada celebrated 26 years of TOTAL reproductive freedom. Since their Supreme Court struck down Canada's abortion law in 1988, the country's experience is proof that laws against abortion are unnecessary. A full generation of Canadians has lived without a law and are better off because of it.
Canada is the first country in the world to prove that abortion care can be ethically and effectively managed as part of standard healthcare practice, without being controlled by any civil or criminal law. Our success is a role model to the world.
After 26 years with no legal restrictions on abortion whatsoever:
- Doctors and women handle abortion care responsibly.
- Abortion rates are fairly low and have steadily declined since 1997.
- Almost all abortions occur early in pregnancy.
- Maternal deaths and complications from abortion are very low.
- Abortion care is fully funded and integrated into the healthcare system (improving accessibility and safety).
- Further legal precedents have advanced women's equality by affirming an
unrestricted right to abortion.
- Public support for abortion rights has increased.
Responsible abortion care: Since 1988, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has successfully managed abortion just as it does for every other medical procedure -- by applying policy and encouraging medical discretion for doctors, subject to a standard code of ethics.
Doctors abide by CMA policy and guidelines, and follow best medical practices based on validated research and clinical protocols. Criminal laws are inappropriate and harmful in medicine because they constrain care and negatively impact the health of patients.
http://www.rabble.ca/columnists/2013/01/benefits-decriminalizing-abortion
Scout
(8,624 posts)do you have even 1 case where a woman waited until 1 week before the due date and tried to abort a "viable" fetus? you don't? how about 2 weeks? you still don't?
that's because it doesn't happen, and only fools bring up this talking point.
we already have reasonable time limits on abortion, it's called Roe v. Wade.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)That's where he/she lost me.
7962
(11,841 posts)I love how all of a sudden I'm against all abortions by my original post.
Its amazing how quickly a lot of people here will go off the rails at the slightest sign of a different opinion.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I think we should follow Canada's lead - ZERO laws/restrictions. None.
On January 28, 2014, Canada celebrated 26 years of TOTAL reproductive freedom. Since their Supreme Court struck down Canada's abortion law in 1988, the country's experience is proof that laws against abortion are unnecessary. A full generation of Canadians has lived without a law and are better off because of it.
Canada is the first country in the world to prove that abortion care can be ethically and effectively managed as part of standard healthcare practice, without being controlled by any civil or criminal law. Our success is a role model to the world.
After 26 years with no legal restrictions on abortion whatsoever:
- Doctors and women handle abortion care responsibly.
- Abortion rates are fairly low and have steadily declined since 1997.
- Almost all abortions occur early in pregnancy.
- Maternal deaths and complications from abortion are very low.
- Abortion care is fully funded and integrated into the healthcare system (improving accessibility and safety).
- Further legal precedents have advanced women's equality by affirming an
unrestricted right to abortion.
- Public support for abortion rights has increased.
Responsible abortion care: Since 1988, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has successfully managed abortion just as it does for every other medical procedure -- by applying policy and encouraging medical discretion for doctors, subject to a standard code of ethics.
Doctors abide by CMA policy and guidelines, and follow best medical practices based on validated research and clinical protocols. Criminal laws are inappropriate and harmful in medicine because they constrain care and negatively impact the health of patients.
http://www.rabble.ca/columnists/2013/01/benefits-decriminalizing-abortion
Women and doctors can be trusted to make safe and moral decisions. Period. Full stop.
Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)Good for them. I'm 100% pro-choice. I have no right what so ever to force another woman to give birth. Her body, her choice.
Scout
(8,624 posts)Scout
(8,624 posts)WE TRUST WOMEN
we don't need regulations against women aborting viable fetuses at 41 weeks, because women don't do that.....
7962
(11,841 posts)not at women as a whole. I'm fully aware that women dont do that. None of my comments were ever directed AT women; only the poster of the OP. Who obviously feels that way.
Laffy Kat
(16,379 posts)But your statement doesn't make sense. At one week before due date, you'd be looking at an induced labor and delivery for a live neonate. Don't try to reduce this to the absurd.
7962
(11,841 posts)Yes, it is absurd, thats why I pointed it out. Of course you could have a live c-section or induced labor a week before. Several weeks before. Happens all the time. But YOU said its not a baby till its born. I'm not making this shit up, you guys are throwing out these ridiculous statements. Semantics.
And if you think, like the OP apparently thinks, ANY restriction on an abortion is just the start of stopping ALL of them, then I guess I understand when gun people say the exact same thing about sensible gun laws and restrictions; "it's just the first step to taking them away from us". Still sounds just as dumb, doesnt it?
Politicub
(12,165 posts)So you can feel self-righteous about your beliefs?
It's not my place to say when a woman can or can't get an abortion. Why can't you allow women to make their own decisions?
Do you think women will suddenly rush to get late-term abortions if the choice is availed to them? This weird paternal attitude toward abortion makes me think some people believe women are so stupid that they are unable to make their own decisions about abortion.
This belief that women should be controlled because they're too ignorant is no different from Limbaugh saying that an aspirin held between a women's knees is the best form of birth control.
I'm sick of seeing support for legislation for stripping women on their right to choose on DU.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)is between a woman and her doctor.
Doctors don't need limits placed by politicians to please ignorant people; doctors are trained to make medical decisions.
Politicians need to regulate banks, insurance companies, Big Pharma and Big Oil, not doctors.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Doctors don't perform abortions a week before the due date for shits and giggles. You could pass a law saying that they can't, but any law you pass creates a risk of denying an abortion to someone who truly needs it for medical reasons.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)If this is the price of inclusion and tolerance then, well then I am going to swear and kick and scream
Potty mouth
What is so conservative about liberal policy and the constitution anyway?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Not when our rate of gun deaths is literally over 100 times higher than the U.K.'s!
Mind you, I don't advocate U.K.-style gun laws - that would be not only excessive but politically unworkable. But what exactly is so unreasonable about background checks or - horrors! - some form of registration?
jmowreader
(50,557 posts)EVERY right winger, without exception, says that if we take any measure to safeguard the people from guns, we will magically become Nazi Germany.
The problem with this theory is, Christian gun nuts would have LOVED Nazi Germany:
only Jews forbidden to own, manufacture or deal in dangerous weapons including guns
for all non-Jews:
rifles and ammunition, and shotguns and ammunition, not regulated whatsoever
pistols not regulated for people holding hunting permits or Nazi Party membership
derby378
(30,252 posts)In Nazi Germany, either you could own a pistol or you couldn't. Sounds like you're saying you had to join the Nazi Party or get a hunting permit in order to obtain another permit to own a pistol, am I correct?
jmowreader
(50,557 posts)You are close: if you joined the Party or had a hunting permit, that card entitled you to own pistols. You didn't need a separate permit once you had the first one.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)Registration? Not sure what that would accomplish.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)post-Sandy Hook "DO SOMETHING!" desperation. Can you really blame me? I don't think anyone but a near-sociopath could have been completely unmoved by what happened to those kids, even if folks might disagree on the exact solutions.
I have no definitive answers to the "gun problem" - especially when even the mildest gun-control legislation fails in Congress - but I wish there was an easy way to keep guns out of the hands of truly dangerous people, the Adam Lanzas and George Zimmermans of the world, while not excessively trampling on the rights of more responsible gun owners.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)just a horrible gruesome event. May have been prevented if the mother kept the guns safely stored. Meaning that as the legal owner she (the mother) should have been the only one with access. She got careless and paid with her life.
Proper mental health care for the boy may have helped.
Aurora theater. BG check at point of sale did not help. Registration would not have helped.
But the simple fact is that as horiffic as these events are they are relatively rare ompared to daily gun crime and violence. Keeping guns away from criminals is crucial. So is safety training.
There is no single measure that will reduce gun violence. But i am convinced BG checks need to done at every sale. Even private sales. It would add a significant burden but i think BG checks have been demonstrated to help.
MA has a "registration" law. If you sell a gun you must file the transaction with the state. Some other states have similar laws. But criminals will not follow the laws. And some states have few laws governing private sales.
So it is a very complex problem and no one legal requirement will fix things on its own. Better mental
health care. More uniform and strongly enforced state laws would help. More and better trained police
would help as well.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)in this country we'll never, ever get rid of them all, and I wouldn't want to try anyway. Certainly there are legitimate uses for firearms - hunting, target shooting, in some cases self-defense (though the Stand Your Ground bullshit kind of taints my perception of the latter use).
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)
moriah
(8,311 posts)If you can retreat with safety, you better have retreated. If you retreat to a defensible position, that's far enough, and you can't be the original aggressor to claim self-defense.
You can't shoot someone stealing your TV, even though they're in your home -- it's not plain Castle Doctrine where it's presumed that you're in fear of your life if a shooting occurs in your home. They have to be committing a violent felony, or you presume they are about to commit a violent felony. (But they better have gotten your TV and be on their way out when you find them for their own safety because the victim's ability to defend themselves in other ways can come up, and if you break in on a woman alone she may be given more leeway on the belief that her life was in danger than a 6'4 linebacker-built man and an unarmed intruder.) A woman also has the right to defend herself against an ongoing pattern of domestic violence with deadly force as part of statute.
But it's all argued in the court after charges are made. Charges are almost always required unless it's clear-cut, like you're on the phone with 911 when you shoot and it truly sounds like you're in fear for your life -- and there's still going to be an investigation.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)I have not seen a single poster on DU that is against ALL gun control measures recently, and in ten-ish years here, I could count the number that WERE against all gun control on one hand.
Registration? Nope. The extremist gun grabbers have shown in multiples, how they would take advantage of registration if and when they had the chance.
And background checks?
EVERY single gun sold by an FFL whether new or used has a background check to accompany it. Federal law since 1994.
The only time a background check is NOT done, is a private person to person sale.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)civilly if not criminally - anyone who tries to get around it. No registration? Fine, there's my "compromise."
I wasn't specifically referring to DU BTW, but "pro-gun" people in the larger world (online and IRL) who go into downright shrieking hysterics over the mildest of restrictive measures. If anything, they're the ones who will cause the whole gun-control "crusade" to go too far, in a way I'm sure the majority of gun owners won't like. Because if people in this country are desperate enough to cut down on the thousands of gun fatalities a year, they can and will resort to measures that you (and perhaps even I) will find draconian.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 1, 2014, 10:00 AM - Edit history (1)
First, government must have the authority at the federal level, to interfere in intra-state transactions (that is transactions within a states borders). It has not been granted such authority. States on the other hand, have such authority, but the constituents of most states seem not to be terribly interested in such things, come election time - the only "polls" that really matter.
Second, Speaking of registration: People already convicted of crimes can not be required by law to register weapons. See the 5th amendment protection against self incrimination.
Third, since you mentioned the word "compromise"...Lets talk about how many of the pro-lots-more-control folks define that word, and have defined it since 1934. Compromise, as they define it, means only coming for half of what they want, then coming back next legislative session for the rest of it. That isn't compromise buddy. We - gun owners and pro-second amendment individuals - got nothing in return for the NFA of 1934. We got nothing in return for the gun control act of 1968. We got nothing in return for the brady bill in the 90s. Compromise is standing at opposite ends of a room and meeting halfway. Walking halfway across the room while they remain against the other wall is a concession, not a compromise. Your definition of the word "compromise" is akin to "I'll smack you in the face, but we'll compromise and I wont add a kick in the ass on top of it".
That might seem reasonable to you, but those on the receiving end of your "compromise" quite reasonably don't see it that way. The things pro-second amendment people have gained, were in spite of anti-gun folks, not because of any compromise with them. The moral of the story, is that the gun control folks need us, to implement anything. We on the other hand, do not need them. Think long and hard about that. Get the "gun violence prevention" crowd to come to the table with honey and some real compromise, rather than their 2-plus-decade old vinegar soaked anti-gun wish list, and maybe things will change.
Fourth, "the mildest of restrictive measures" is in the eye of the beholder. Bans on weapons that are responsible for less deaths nationwide than blunt injury deaths from hands and feet, for example. Waiting periods? A right delayed is a right denied. Some of us take our rights under the second amendment quite seriously. One gun a month? That's just dumb. Magazing capacity limits? No sir. The simple fact, is that other than the openly "ban them all" folks, not a single gun control poster here or supporter at large that I have ever seen interacted with or heard of, has ever been able and/or willing, to articulate just how much gun control is enough. Not a single one seems ready willing or able to identify the point at which they would stop banging the gun control drum. This adds to the already huge amount of distrust that they have earned themselves by their behavior and tactics. That's not on gun owners or second amendment supporters, Its on gun control proponents. They own that. In addition, the problem with many if not most of these so called "mildest of restrictions", is that they do not...can not...achieve any of the goals that those promoting them claim as their purpose. So many of them are gun control for the sake of gun control, proposed by people with a clear historic record of an anti-gun agenda. Let me know how many examples you need within reason, and I'll be happy to provide them.
Fifth, "draconian" measures are already here. See the registration requirement in CT, passed as an answer to a tragic crime which it will not...can not...prevent a repeat of. And, remember the part about convicted criminals being constitutionally protected from prosecution for not registering? Yeah. That means it isn't about criminals at all. And its all about rifles which are involved in less deaths every year than blunt trauma from hands and feet. That may not meet the definition of "draconian" to the "lots more gun control" folks, but to a whole lot of people it is. The glaring lack of participation in CTs registration scheme is proof that a large number of the people expected to comply see it as draconian.
Sixth, while every death is tragic, its no excuse to ignore reality or avoid getting some perspective. There are roughly 80 to 100 million gun owners in this nation. There are roughly ten thousand gun homicides annually. All the other gun deaths save a tiny number of accidents, are suicides. This is the point at which the gun control folks start shrieking their favorite strawman "Oh, so suicides don't matter, huh?". Nobody here, has ever said that. Suicides and homicides, even when the same implement is used, are different animals, which require different solutions, as opposed to one size fits all "gun control...gun control...gun control".
Finally, in addition to the existing distrust that the "gun violence prevention crowd" has earned for itself, not a one of them seem interested in any ways of reducing gun violence that don't include gun control. That calls their motives into question, without a doubt, like so many of the other things they propose.
My suggestion, is that if you want things to change, and people like me to come to the table, denounce and remove from the debate, the gun banners, the registrationists, and their ilk. Folks like me will not come to the table so long as they who are diametrically opposed to the exercise by us of our rights, are there. We have no interest in bargaining for how much of our pie they want this session, or making concessions which enable them to come back for another slice next session. We've played that game before, like I mentioned above, and its done nothing but further the agenda of those who are diametrically opposed to the exercise by us of our rights. That's a fact.
On edit: Heres an example of what I'm talking about. A poster characterizes those in opposition to the mostly ignored CT registration business, which deals with ONLY semi-automatic rifles, as "Second Amendment absolutists":
"Second Amendment absolutists are so oppressed and put upon by tyrannical governments that they are becoming absolutely distraught. They are in an absolute tizzy over these violations of their absolute right to "bear" any lethal weapon they so choose, anywhere, at anytime."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12625974#post2
Are we really supposed to believe that folks with attitudes like this, who ignore what gun control we DO support, want any kind of "compromise" rather than a concession? Are we supposed to believe that they a conversation, rather than a monologue?
I don't think so.
7962
(11,841 posts)Gun fanatics think ANY restriction is just the first step to taking them all away. The OP apparently feels the same way about ANY restriction on abortion.
And I agree with you on the UK-style laws thing, too. The problem is the guns are already HERE, millions of them, and we'd never get rid of them. In the UK, there were very few handguns to start with.
So hey, we DO agree on something!
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Yes, it's the "white privilege" part. Regardless of what its more hardcore defenders may want to believe, this is *NOT* part of Democratic core values. Never has been. And you're lumping those who disagree with it's use with conservatives? That's the problem right there, dude.
For goodness sakes, man. Can't we all at least agree that discrimination and racism are still kicking, and that we can strive for a truly equal world? Because that IS a core Democratic value.
"White privilege", is subscribed to by only a very small minority of Democrats overall. Even the majority of DUers don't buy it. And in fact, it can be plausibly argued that the "White Privilege" defenders club here owes its very existence to the "Big Tent" you claim to hate so much.
And if you truly want to know where I stand on the issues:
a.)Background checks and adequate regulation are paramount. I don't want no tanks or guys with rocket launchers holding up the local burger joint or grocery store just to steal 50 bucks.
b.)An abortion is very much a woman's right to choose. No exceptions.
c.)Yes, there remains a problem with inequality in this country, and we need to keep working on that. But it doesn't require that we engage in arcane language usage to do so. We just need to focus on straightforward education.
(P.S.: BTW, I do realize that not everyone that believes in "white privilege" is an argumentative arsehole who attacks those who disagree with them, so if you're a reasonable person who is able to disagree without attacking, then don't worry, this wasn't about you. It was just towards those guys and ladies who DO have that issue. That's all.)
A-Schwarzenegger
(15,596 posts)Wasn't there a little DU poll around here recently on this very topic,
whether DUers thought white privilege was "real"?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)....and also, it can be admitted that not everyone seems to have the exact same definition of "white privilege" from what I've observed on here.
A-Schwarzenegger
(15,596 posts)Can't seem to find it anywhere.
A-Schwarzenegger
(15,596 posts)You're right, they're swarming it, but it's getting closer.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4581118
Number23
(24,544 posts)And I don't think there is anything even remotely scientific about a DU poll.
But that person's contention that "the majority of DUers don't buy it" when the threads DENYING the existence of white privilege get about 15 recs, and this thread has over a hundred as well as that poll has the people that think it's real over the deniers by more than 10-1, make it easy to see that white privilege ain't the only thing that person is denying.
A-Schwarzenegger
(15,596 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts) 
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)Other than a lack of support 
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)That is heavily tied to liberal thought and leaning. In particular, when it comes to issues of class, race, sex, orientation and religion. Modern liberalism is in large degree about egalitarianism and social justice and the term privilege refers to social inequality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_%28social_inequality%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_inequality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
And where do you get this statistic about it only being subscribed to by only a very small minority of Democrats and DU? Especially given there was a poll that OVERWHELMINGLY shows support of the concept of privilege on DU.
Not to mention, being a democrat is different from being a liberal. Though it is becoming increasingly rare (thank goodness), one can be a conservative and a democrat.
I'm sorry, but if you are arguing against privilege you are taking a CONSERVATIVE STANCE. It is not liberal, and is diametrically opposed to many liberal philosophies including feminism and anti-racism.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Modern liberalism is in large degree about egalitarianism and social justice.....
Yes, but you can be for both without subscribing to "White Privilege" theory, can't you? (Actually, that's kind of a no-brainer: of course you can!)
Especially given there was a poll that OVERWHELMINGLY shows support of the concept of privilege on DU.
Here's the thing: there were only about 50 or so respondents, roughly, last I checked; there are over 150,000 people on this site. If anything at all, it just shows that most of the people who don't believe in "white privilege", or on the fence, actually don't really care about who does and who doesn't in the first place: it's mainly those who are passionately attached to it, and in a few cases, those actively opposed to the term(myself included).
I'm sorry, but if you are arguing against privilege you are taking a CONSERVATIVE STANCE
I'm sorry, but this is simply untrue. There are MANY liberals who acknowledge societal inequity, including more than a few feminists and anti-racists(I am both of these, btw) without subscribing to "white privilege" theory; I'm really, truly quite far from alone in this.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)But it is still a conservative stance.
Its now over 200. 181 in favor, 17 against, 4 not voting.
By your logic every poll on here proves the opposite of what they claim without exception. You are also ignoring that a) That poll gave people the option to say they didn't believe b) polls in general are a sampling of a population rather than everyone
This statement defies all logic and is in fact a logical fallacy. Especially while there IS EVIDENCE (the poll and recs on pro white privilege threads vs anti-privilege threads) that MOST OF DU BELIEVES in white privilege, there is NONE that proves the contrary.
You can be that. But you are still taking a conservative stance on this issue by denying that it exists.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Its now over 200. 181 in favor, 17 against, 4 not voting.
Okay, and?
By your logic every poll on here proves the opposite of what they claim without exception.
Not really. But in this case, there's actually some logic to what I've said.
You are also ignoring that a) That poll gave people the option to say they didn't believe b) polls in general are a sampling of a population rather than everyone
I didn't ignore that at all, and in fact, I even pointed out as much: "....and in a few cases, those actively opposed to the term(myself included)." So I'm not sure where you got that from.
Especially while there IS EVIDENCE (the poll and recs on pro white privilege threads vs anti-privilege threads) that MOST OF DU BELIEVES in white privilege, there is NONE that proves the contrary.
There is no evidence for that, though, and that's the problem. All it shows, again, is that quite a few of those who passionately care about the issue *will* show up, as well as the fact that, admittedly, there aren't quite as many people who actively disagree with the terminology. If anything at all, most DUers probably don't really care one way or the other.....of course, I'll admit that I'd like for more people to be on my side(as in those who not only disagree with the term, but also make their views heard as well), but that doesn't really change anything.
But you are still taking a conservative stance on this issue by denying that it exists.
Again, where's your proof? And in fact, it can be plausibly argued that believing in literal "white privilege" as an actual phenomenon is actually one of the more hardcore positions one could possibly take(Of course, some wackier folks will literally take it to the extreme and claim that only white people can be racist, or that all whites are racist, etc.). And I don't necessarily mean "bad" hardcore.....just the "rather removed from the norm" type hardcore.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)I didn't vote or kick it because it's an obvious push poll. If it had given the choices of recognizing the existence of: racial discrimination OR white privilege OR neither, then it would have been a legitimate poll, and the numbers would be different. I'm not predicting that the majority would shift, but then again who knows, it might.
Fwiw, I also don't think that trying to stick a conservative label on people is kosher according to liberal values either. And it's an attempt to merely disqualify an opposing position without winning the argument, which is weak.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Can you find any statistical support for the idea that only a small minority of Democrats support white privilege? I have yet to see you support your very confident assessments with any kinds of numbers or sources.
How do you get to decide this is not a core Democratic value? What do you have to support this concept, which I certainly never heard of before.
While I see you make these statements over and over, I don't see you support them.
You are certainly wrong about the majority of DU, when 91% of the respondents believe that white privilege is a real issue.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)
WhiteTara
(29,715 posts)I think it has to do with control and power over others. Women are powerful and "dangerous" and "magical." Therefore the only way to survive it is to try and crush that (that) they fear. JMHO of course.
TeamPooka
(24,226 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'm with you on the other issues. Lot less of a grey area there.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)32% of all democratic adults, whether they are voters or not. That translates into approximately 40 million US households that identify one or both (if multiple) owners as Democrats.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)I think that does not qualify as an enormous percentage, perhaps. But keep on shooting blanks.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Meaning, the household number is higher.
Also, the D/Lean D number is 37%, which would include Greens, Progressives and other liberal groups that do not exclusively identify as Democrats.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)the total number of households who own guns (Widely reported around 90 million households) and then consider that for the 22% of exclusively Democratic respondents, the exact same metric for Republicans is only 28%.
That's a 6% delta just counting 'hard' Republicans and Democrats.
Food for thought.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)implies way, way over 50%.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Well, I will retract that usage of 'enormous' but I meant it in that this is kind of a big deal. I mean, we are talking about having a machine, in your house, that can put holes in humans.
For all the scope and power of the right-wing gun owners, the number of left wing gun owners is very close indeed.
Enormous was probably not the right word, and probably led to our disagreement. I'm sorry. I'm not sure exactly what adjective I'd substitute. Gun owners are a minority no matter how you slice the data, yet they are VERY impactful in politics, and even people who don't own a gun tend to 'swing their way' in other polls, regardless of the fact that they don't even have a dog in that fight, so to say.
For instance, the number of people who wanted to control gun ownership declined 9pts in 1 year in this one, and the desire to protect gun rights (what the fuck does that mean, guns are objects they don't have rights, dammnit PEW) rose 8pts. And the totals are far larger than the gun-owning population of the nation.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/04/30/public-takes-conservative-turn-on-gun-control-abortion/
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)By the way. I would happily see all hand guns banned, as well as any weapon that did not have a use other than hunting.
(I disapprove of hunting also, by the way, but I know that would never have any chance)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It's not my preference. Honestly, the same gun I use to take deer today, was used by the US army to kick the Germans out of France in WWII, so there's significant overlap between the classes of weapons.
But I understand your point. This is why I work toward measures I think will help, because if gun owners aren't part of the solution, we damn well won't like the solution that eventually comes.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Aristus
(66,361 posts)But boy, is this gonna rattle the cages of the gun-crazies...
heaven05
(18,124 posts)smack em down!!!!!
tea and oranges
(396 posts)MO_Moderate
(377 posts)Even Republicans allow pro-choice folks into their party. Pro gun control and gay folk also.
I don't know whether to be thankful that your narrow-mindedness is of the minority in our party, or to just roll my eyes at your gross misunderstanding of other peoples beliefs and positions.
Tell me, why is a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, Jim Crow hating woman who does not support gun registration not good enough to be one of YOUR Democrats?
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)life get little if any response?
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)As a white woman in Texas, white privilege arguments affect my life.
As a resident of Texas (a SYG state) and widow of a suicide victim, gun control arguments affect my life.
Your question again??
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)to pick a fight and maybe i stated in poorly but it seems thatposts that affect the population as a whole get little attention compared to posts about priviledge and men vs women issues and sports illistrated covers etc. please dont be offended i didnt mean it that way
btw im sitting in the dfw airport right now waiting on a flight. syg aside the weather's terrific here im headed to 0 degrees and 2.5 feet of snow. lucky me
btw i dont know if you noticed russia is invading the ukraine, potus said there will be consequences
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)They are comments based upon comments others make. It would possibly behoove you to know the difference.
One is not "offended" when one disagrees with you. That line isn't working out so well for you.
I'm going to remain interested in a good variety of topics, if that's okay with you.
Have a nice flight.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)do you know how to be gracious to someone sticking out an olive branch? doesnt seem like it
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)branch.
Saying "we shall agree to disagree" while wishing one another well is typically what works for me.
I don't do fights either. I do common sense discussion.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)and come back and see us in Texas again sometime. Houston is beautiful in the spring.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)MO_Moderate
(377 posts)This 'F-you if you don't think like me' attitude does nothing to reach our common goal to better the nation.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Are you willing to give up the votes at the ballot box from those people that dont meet your strict qualifications to be s member of our party?
Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)I think the problem is sometimes people feel like discussions on white privilege, feminism, LBGT rights, etc., are rants personally targeting them even though they are not about them. (That feeling that every post is about you and your life might actually be a part of the whole privilege thing.) The posts are about the system that keeps everyone in their place, and yes, that. includes white people. I haven't seen anyone here say that white, straight men can't be used or abused. There are plenty of poor or working class white guys who aren't getting their fair share. That being said however, women, POC, gay people as a whole still face more b.s. then their white counterparts.
I do think that class and money are starting to matter more, and the bigger the gap between the 1% and the rest of us gets, the more they will matter. But, at this point in time, gender, race and sexual orientation more often then not, still matter more then class or money. I have noticed that the GOP likes to make poor/working class white males feel like they are being attacked by women's groups, black or gay people etc., so those men will vote for them and against their own economic self-interest. Why else would someone who makes under $50,000-$60,000 vote for anyone who says they're against healthcare for all, raising taxes on the uber-rich, founding programs like food stamps or head start, and pro-war?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)once you say "gay marriage is more important than income equality", just about every working class person says, at least inwardly: go fuck yourself.
Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)But, if they have, I don't agree. Neither one is anymore or less important to me. I can be for both marriage and income equality all at the same time.
Wonder what gay, working class people think about this.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)and I quote:-
Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)Because I never said that gay marriage was more important then income equality. I think you misinterpreted my post. I meant that when it comes to how we are treated race, gender, etc., are usually bigger factors than anything else. I did not mean they were more important or that money and class issues don't matter.
Rilgin
(787 posts)I am not a white man. I am a human being and an individual. The only group I internally accept is that of being a human being part of humanity.
I think that we should have a country of equality and consideration for others as part of humanity. That is the goal that I think progressive politics should seek. I do not believe that progressive politics is served best by identity politics and groups fighting with each other.
Now, it is obvious that the world has not obtained this goal yet. Racism, Sexism, envy, greed, hatred, sadism all exist in the world. Current civil rights violations seem to me to be a huge issue. In particular, the criminal justice system in this country is the institution that I believe has the most problems.
With regard to claims of racism or sexism, I have no problem whatsoever with someone talking about themselves to identify racism or sexism in the world that affected them. When I hear a statement or claim usually I can judge for myself if I believe the claim to be actual but I have no voice in what that person is saying about their own internal beliefs or interpretations.
However, when a person uses the phrase or concept of "White Privilege" to describe an incident where a person of color or a woman were discriminated against, they are NOT talking about themselves. They are not white or male (depending on the claim), they are talking about someone not even in the situation. They are clearly talking about some idealized non-individual who is not their particular race or gender. This is not treating people as people and individuals as individuals, this is judging a whole group of people who are not you.
If a PoC is stopped in a neighborhood by a racist cop (consciously or subconsciously racist), it is not white privilege, it is racism. There is no white person in the car, there is only a PoC. Describing discrimination that affects you is very easy to do in the first person. Example "I was discriminated against". If instead you use a complicated form to say someone who is not you and was not in that situation was not discriminated against, you are trying to do more than just talk about yourself and your experiences. You are talking about other people and trying to assert something about their internal experience and state. In this case, since you would call me a white man, you are implicitly talking about me unless I do something (totally unidentified) to avoid criticism from being a member of the villain group.
I totally reject this formulation of racism and do not believe it is progressive to divide individuals into groups. I believe it is the opposite of what I think progressive politics should seek. In particular, progressive boards, IMO, should not be about finding differences between groups rather than find points of identity and comity between individuals. Civil rights forever, identity politics should be put in the past as people not in the ruling class fighting amongst themselves.
Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)not everyone has the privilege of thinking about themselves as human beings first and whatever else second. Just for the record I'm a white female, but I too see myself as a human being first. However sometimes the outside world reminds me that I am female. As for the term "white privilege", I really don't think it vilifies anyone since its about overall trends and the structural problems in our culture.
Rilgin
(787 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 2, 2014, 12:18 PM - Edit history (1)
There is nothing wrong with the world reminding you that you are female since you are. It is when the world does not treat you as a human being who is female or discriminates against you for that or any other reason that is the problem.
Further, you phrase your comment correctly. You phrase it as "about themselves as human beings". I have no problems with people talking about themselves. When racism and sexism is brought up by a person who is recounting his own personal problems with it, I have no real problem. When I hear it sometimes I agree with the person that his or her subjective experience is actually happening and sometimes I don't and I think mostly the problems we have with racism and sexism are lessening and will disappear with the younger generation. Where I believe racism is most problematic is in the criminal justice system. However, if a person talks about their own experience and I internally believe they are wrongly reading a situation there is no harm and no foul because they are talking about themselves.
As I said in my earlier post, people should have no "privilege" to objectify any other individual which is inherent in terming the other person only as a member of a group all things being equal and not seeing them as individuals. This is "objectification". The only real group is humanity and within that group, no two individuals are ever equal. They/we are all faced with different challenges some lesser and some greater and some are even born with silver spoons and for the most part we face similar issues in this American culture unless we are one of the 1%.
In another post, I gave an example of another grouping that is possible if you are talking privilege. Studies show that tall people do much better in American society than short people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_discrimination. If you told a tall PoC, that he was privileged because "all things being equal" his group does better in society, I think you might find that he would not agree that privilege defines his situation or that he should admit that it has helped him in life because he probably internally would not identify with that group. If he was in a bad way in society I think he might even be offended if anyone tried to obtain an admission that he was privileged because of his height and ignored his actual situation. However, height is equally as valid as race if you want to just use a statistical analysis of life's problems and seek only an admission that you have a characteristic that statistically does better than other people without that characteristic.
Personally, I am shorter than average height. It is a characteristic that I had no choice in. However, the statistics about how height affects your way in society would not lead me to discuss it as a privilege that other people might posess. In fact, I do not think it has really affected my life so the statistics about this have no bearing whatsoever in my life. I really used height as an example of using statistics to group people and find fault with people who do not accept such grouping.
Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)But usually when the world reminds me that I'm female, it does so to make me less human. It tries to make me the "other".
I do agree that there are a lot of times when a story about sexism/racism/homophobia is subjective. Sometimes people see things that are not there, just like people say things they don't mean or that are taken the wrong way. If you've ever wondered why someone is being so sensitive about something, then think of the mental/emotional (or whatever you want to call them) wounds caused by discrimination as burns. It doesn't matter how lightly you touch it, or even if it was an accident, the other person still feels it.
I also agree that our justice system is a problem, but its not the only one. Our school system, for example, still has issues when it comes to race. Trust me, I went from an almost all white pre-k to 5th grade school to a mostly black/Hispanic one and even at the age of 10 I could tell that there were differences. The kids at the white school were treated as such, while the kids at the other school were treated like mini-criminals-in-training. At the first school we had new books and playthings, got cup cakes on our birthdays and when we got in trouble, the punishment fit the crime. The second school, however, was literally falling apart, no new books and you couldn't even talk at lunch time. We actually learned some sign language to get around that one. It was located in the middle of a well known drug haven so when they found drugs on the playground guess who got blamed. I'm not even talking about pot here, I mean hard core drugs you need needles to use. That little incident went so badly that a coach was eventually fired for how she punished students (think non-stop yelling, with no water or bathroom breaks, like a police interrogation). That might actually illustrate what I mean. It's not the white students fault how they, or the black students, were treated, but they were treated better. I'm sure if you asked us back then, we would want every student of every color to be treated equally. .
Oddly enough, when it comes to women I'm slightly taller then average. I have noticed some differences between how I am treated and how my shorter friends are treated. I've dated shorter men before and have experienced other guys completely disrespecting them in front of me. Again, I don't think discussions on privilege are meant to find fault or blame any one single person. From what I've read, they look at the larger picture, but on this we may just have to agree to disagree.
Rilgin
(787 posts)I do not really get to see how the school system functions but I could imagine there is remnant institutional problems with race that may not be explained by disparities in funding. The criminal justice system is just something I know more about.
I can also believe that some people are trying to talk about statistics when they talk about privilege but the problem is that it is an individualized word. Privileges just do not extend to groups. Further, some of the use is not so pure and is directed at individuals who are white saying they are individually privileged just by being white. When you use statistics in this way it reminds me of the joke that Me and Bill Gates have an average net worth of 50 Billion. I have been in a room with Bill Gates or at least in the same hotel lobby and I did not actually feel richer on average.
Anyhow, nice discussing with you.
Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)So I wouldn't be surprised if there were still ill feelings about race that affected students. And I stayed in the same town when I moved, so money wasn't always part of the problem.
One more thing about privilege. On a whole it is extended to groups, just like racism is extended to different groups. Doesn't mean that a white person can't experience what a black person does, or that every PoC will be treated the same. I know I've personally experienced being chased out of a neighborhood where my skin color was not the same as the people who lived there. I do think that using statics to single out someone probably isn't going to get us anywhere. I guess in this world the only thing you, or anyone, can do is treat others fairly and try to get along.
Response to TeamPooka (Original post)
Th1onein This message was self-deleted by its author.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)I don't care whether your objections are religious or moral.
NOT.YOUR.BUSINESS.
Response to PassingFair (Reply #160)
Th1onein This message was self-deleted by its author.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)If so, NOT.YOUR.BUSINESS.
Response to PassingFair (Reply #190)
Th1onein This message was self-deleted by its author.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 3, 2014, 01:11 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This was alerted why? A person is allowed to have an opinion and express it. If they think others agree, they are either correct or delusional but they are entitled to an opinion.
The alert makes the same claim, just from the opposing viewpoint...
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I didn't see an insult. "Many others do" was not necessarily meant to mean "Many others on DU do". We're entitled to our opinions. I may not agree with them all, but I refuse to hide them based on my disagreement.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Most of us would strenuously disagree with the poster's position on this issue, yet it was stated politely and respectfully. I see no violation of DU's rules or policies here.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nothing inappropriate in this reply. Just because your opinion differs doesn't make it inappropriate.
Ease off the button.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I just don't see the violation. Even if advocating against abortion was a reason to hide the post, I don't see that anti-choice being advocated. I see someone rationally explaining why the position of the op/ed was not true (everyone who opposes abortion is a religious zealot).
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I see nothing wrong with this post... I disagree with them but that hardly seems worthy of hiding it...
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)The simple fact is that a zygote or embryo is INSIDE a BODY.
Countries and prisoners are NOT.
That BODY has sovereignty over itself.
(Not my alert, by the way.)
Response to PassingFair (Reply #214)
Th1onein This message was self-deleted by its author.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)And frankly, I tend to not delve into this discussion on here out of respect for the nature of the board. I don't think this one issue makes me any less of a democrat.
That said, I honestly hate this debate under any circumstance. Remove the nuts and I think one of the problems is that people refuse to accept the fact that someone may have rational perspective for where they come from.
I understand that many people don't see it as a life and see it as a woman exercising her right over her own body. I also understand that some people see it as a life and cannot support what they perceive as murder.
My view is that I don't know. Decades ago, a fetus was not viable until 30+ weeks. Today, it is not uncommon for a fetus born at 24 weeks to survive with little or no long term detriments. Who knows what the future may hold. I don't think the need for medical equipment for one born early precludes it from being alive any more than an adult needing medical equipment is still alive. Given that I don't know when it becomes a life, I struggle with the possibility it could be murder. This is why I oppose most wars, why I oppose capital punishment, etc.
Hopefully, I don't get blasted or suspended for the stating this. Like I said, this is the first (and probably last) time I will share this here (again, out of respect for the board). I apologize if I offended anyone.
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)And I am Democrat and hopefully you are, too.
TxDemChem
(1,918 posts)
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 1, 2014, 02:17 AM - Edit history (1)
stop and listen to people we sometimes (not always - but SOMETIMES) discover that they are not as evil seeming and sinister as we might have initially thought
TeamPooka
(24,226 posts)I'm going to back to fighting tooth and nail for what I believe, even if it's with people who say we are on the same side as me while they act to stymie progressive action I support.
I think I owe it to myself.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)not be altogether enlightened on all social issues but support a progressive economic agenda. The math just does not add up. There is simply not a majority who support both a progressive economic agenda who are also liberal on most or all social issues. But I gather that either you are against building a progressive majority or you have not done the math. If your goal is to drive away everyone who has less than enlightened views on some social issues - I have to assume that you are against building a progressive majority.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Folks who claim to be economically progressive but also socially regressive have a selfish and simplistic view of what is and is not an economic issue. Equality for LGBT people is about our financial lives among many other things, you have advantages and rights denied to us by straight folks who use those advantages against us. Choice and reproductive freedom is perhaps the single most determining issue for women in terms of financial survival. To claim a person can be 'economically progressive' while opposing the economic progress of others is simply insane. A person who would reject good economic policy because they are offended by equal rights for other people is not a progressive. 'Let them starve while we advance our own financial well being' is as conservative as it gets.
If you want to drive away people who built the progressive movement to make room for right leaning anti choice, anti gay types, it is very clear who is opposed to actual progress and actual equity.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)I'm stating the fact that it is simply not possible to build a working progressive majority that drives away everyone who is less than enlightened on social issues. That does NOT mean that people should not work and campaign for the social issues they care about.
Besides we (meaning the Left and progressive movement) are winning the culture war. Even Coca Cola Corporation is betting its future and its bottom line on that. But we are losing the class struggle and the economic war.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)TeamPooka
(24,226 posts)That's on you.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I would ban all private ownership of automatics, semiautomatics, and handguns, and impose mandatory registration of other kinds of firearm.
I acknowledge that racial discrimination exists and needs to be ended, but I think the constant focus on "white privilege" here is not the most productive way to frame this issue.
Is there room for me in the tent?
hack89
(39,171 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)the rants of foolish or malicious people is always a bad idea.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)good night, god bless...
stopwastingmymoney
(2,042 posts)I am with you all the way!
Cha
(297,220 posts)
malaise
(268,998 posts)Oldenuff
(582 posts)then they should gtfo?
The Democratic party needs a bigger tent if that is what you are saying.
Is this the party where you think that we all are required to think exactly like you do or leave?Thats almost as bad as being a conservative.I reserve the right to have my own opinions,thank you very much.I thought we were a party of free thinkers.Evidently not.
TomClash
(11,344 posts)All social - no class. Yes, that is a double entendre.
Note that a fair wage, support for unions, fair labor standards, a just tax system, growing inequality - are issues nowhere to be found.
The OP is a primer on how not to win elections so that Democrats can never govern.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)that has earned and preserved those Unions over generations of sacrifice and progress. But sure, they don't care about union, they just built a few from scratch and keep them vital decade after decade. Your post is a primer on why talking points from the right about 'Hollywood' are so deeply full of shit.
TomClash
(11,344 posts)While failing to address the rest of the post (ugh, because it's true), you set up a straw man to light fire to. Really ingenious.
No one said Hollywood didn't have unions. No one.
The OP sets himself up as a Hollywood guy and he doesn't mention class in his absolutist catalog. That was the point.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... the poster claims to be a Democrat.
And for those who claim that closing the tent to those positions means we'll never win another election obviously have not heard the news - progressive policies are popular.
If someone came on this site and claimed to be a Democrat while posting that corporations should not be taxed, that gays should be locked up, that blacks are inferior, that diplomacy was a waste of time and we should nuke Iran, would we allow that? I don't think so. So why do we allow them to claim these issues individually?
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)A bunch of cheerleading that accomplishes nothing and means even less.
Token Republican
(242 posts)I like to swim naked in a pool of piranhas, but since I can't until the service man leaves, I'll jump into this thread. 
The biggest problems I've seen on the issues raised by the OP is a complete misunderstanding of what the other side is thinking. One thing I've learned in resolving disputes is that its extremely valuable for each side to be able to articulate the other side's position, not to change minds but to understand the root cause of the disagreement.
Abortion is horrible, its an abomination, yet I support the right to it. Its a necessary evil to address a very hard decision. I've debated the abortion issue with people who hold widely divergent views, and I've yet to hear anyone say or imply that opposition to abortion is due to a desire to impose a moral code on anyone. Opponents of abortion view fetuses as babies. You can agree or disagree, but with that assumption, if it is true, then opponents of abortion are motivated by saving lives.
Proponent of the right of abortion see the effects of an unwanted pregnancy on the woman, and how having a child can be such a life altering event that she alone should have control. Having, and raising a child is such a responsibility that there should be a way to remedy an unplanned pregnancy. I've yet to hear anyone gleefully say they love abortions; the motivation for keeping the right to abortion is about having women continue to have control over their own bodies and future.
Its beyond exasperating when neither side can see what motivates the other.
In this thread, there are arguments that take each side to the extreme. That's actually a useful technique to test a premise. Nobody is arguing that a woman in labor should have the right to abort, which means that the right to abortion does end sometime before birth. Is it hours? days? weeks? months? There's no hard and fast line here, but nearly everyone agrees it exists. Somewhere.
On the other side, absent the extremist view that life begins at conception, there is a general acceptance that abortion is acceptable if its early enough. But how early? A day? week? month? At some point there is a line that is crossed that it stops being acceptable and turns into murder. But just like the other side, there is a line that nearly everyone agrees exists. Somewhere.
Overall, asking yourself the hard questions is critical. If a woman has an absolute right to an abortion, it means the fetus has no rights. If so, how can you justify some laws that criminalize killing a fetus when a pregnant woman is killed? It might be right or wrong, but its inconsistent with the premise. If abortion is murder, then how can there be an exception for rape and incest. The child didn't cause these events and why should the child pay the ultimate price. If a fetus is a parasite, does that mean that a living being who is 100% dependent biologically on one other specific being has a right to be killed? If so, what about co-joined twins? If that premise is true, then each co-joined twin should have the right to kill each other. What I'm saying is take your assumptions and conclusions, and test them with the hard questions. If you're comfortable with the answers, your conclusions are probably valid. If not, then perhaps they should be revisited.
Its these kind of questions that everyone needs to answer, if only to themselves.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)They should stay in the gungeon where they can debate whose gun is biggest and which one is the extremist who can bray the loudest.
