HighResolutionSleep
No bio...
User ID: 172
I can say from personal experience that the abortion issue did curb a lot of my enthusiasm, and I wound up not voting. I even got a ballot delivered directly to my house and I didn't bother.
Republicans don't seem to know the difference between consolidating power and spending it. I suspect that decades of cultural and religious hegemony robbed them of this knowledge. They will either learn, or perish.
Look, there's a version of the progressive position that might actually be respectable. You can make a compelling case that human beings in basically any context have a very poor track record of resisting the temptation to use real or imagined differences in cognitive ability as a basis for a stratification in worthiness of basically any kind. You could furthermore make the case that there's not good evidence that we've outgrown these tenancies.
But if you're going to take the discussion of such differences off the table, they must be fully taken off the table—not remain half on and half off the table as they are now. You can't take the half off the table that involves the study of ethnic differences in cognitive ability but then leave the half on the table that involves forming public policy on the basis of a lack thereof.
It must be all the way on, or come all the way off.
I miss the 2005-2012 inter-regime period where you could say almost whatever you wanted without the inquisitors showing up
Short and simple answer: because public policy is being made on the assumption that it's largely false.
I used to think that things like flags and symbols were silly and pointless but I now realize that they are extremely important touchstones for revealing people's true dispositions
I know that politics isn't supposed to makes sense, but this news cycle has made extra no sense. Everybody seems to be at peak rhetorical incompetence, from the left with stuff like the above, and the right with "Democrats are once again the real racists!"
- Prev
- Next
I've been seeing this rhetoric from certain factions of the right recently, but now I suppose it's being espoused by someone whose attention may be accessible to me—so maybe you can help me out understanding this one.
Who, pray tell, is the audience for this statement? Cads who are looking to get married and start a family? Married men who are looking to fuck around?
What is the thesis of this rant? "Sorry fellas, as long as there are promiscuous men out there, your married ass can't expect fair treatment from family courts."
I am deeply confused.
More options
Context Copy link