- cross-posted to:
- atheism@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
This implies it’s falling on its own.
There should be a mass of red hats trying to push it over.
Call me radical if you want but, I don’t think Subject A of our cause should be rights for a minority of our citizenry.
Those rights should be unspoken truths we uphold regardless.
The common man will walk by TRANS RIGHTS 4000 times before they walk by UNION STRIKE.
The left needs to go back to focusing on workers, unions, labor, taxes, fairness and sense. Trans rights are important, and topical, but I feel the sjw yelling pushes a lot of people away from what our side of politics is actually about.
There isn’t a single person I work with that wouldn’t toss a flier with ‘trans rights’ written on it in the trash the second it was handed to them.
that’s the importance of countermessaging. harris and walz had it right for 0.0076ms with their “weird” direction, like “look how fucking weird jd vance is for wanting to do genital inspections on every kid in order to make life harder for like 40 kids nationwide, what a freak!?!” and even some conservatives were like “yeah that’s a little far we don’t need to be doing all that.” that was a really successful strategy that had great potential.
…and then they dropped that like a month before the election in favor of courting suburban conservatives. from “weird” to “follow the law.”
I see your point but when basic human rights of a minority group are threatened, there is a moral imperative to organize to protect them, regardless of their popularity. There’s really no way around it. I think a framing that includes trans rights as only one aspect of a larger struggle for human freedom and dignity is the best strategy. Because there will need to be some discussion of trans rights if fascists continue to attack them. The alternative is to abandon a part of our community to violent oppression, which to me is unthinkable.
MSNBC agrees with you that the Democrats went too “woke”… while repubs dumped millions into trans panic ads. If “left” Democratic leaning media is willing to throw principles under the bus to capitulate on hand waving economic yabbering, then we need to stop associating them with leftist principles.
Again, repubs did all the sjw yapping about trans people, and other than the bare minimum the dems pretty much kept quiet while also not making moves on unions or anything the like. Shouldacouldawoulda, but they didn’t. And trans people should not be brought to take the brunt of what lies ahead because of that.
I know its easy to say the dems should have done different, but DO NOT let rightwing narrative lead to you lapse in your principles, we’re here because the Democrats couldnt stick to theirs regardless.
We’re here now, so all you can do is protect your trans neighbors and friends. I, for one, certainly wouldn’t want to be told my rights as an individual were focused on TOO MUCH by the only people willing to represent me.
Seriously, we got one line of support from Walz and Harris’ offer to follow the law, which is a far cry from supporting trans rights when you consider the laws being passed in many states.
Democrats who were pressed on trans rights this election cycle consistently backed down and conceded and moved towards discriminatory Republican positions.
I wish Harris had won, I would feel much more comfortable with the future prospects of my rights the next 4 years. But anyone who views the Democratic party as truly supportive of trans rights, certainly in any kind of national sense, is sorely mistaken.
It was a distraction tactic and they fell for it brilliantly.
If that’s how they feel about basic human rights, then they don’t deserve to have support for their union, either. They are both about respect, and if you’re not willing to give it then you don’t deserve to get it, either.
Ah yes, the leftists mortal enemy, the less-idealogically-pure leftist.
Of the people that care enough to vote, leftists are a clear minority. We need to find people to work with on specific, community-building goals, even if we can’t agree with them on everything (or anything!) else.
Funny you say that, because I’m definitely not a radical leftist - except maybe somewhat for social justice. While I mostly agree with progressive ideals, I’m also pragmatic enough to accept that such drastic change can’t realistically happen overnight - or, in many cases, even vaguely quickly. At least not without some rather significant, yet unnecessary upheavals in much of the general population’s lives.
While I wouldn’t stop supporting unions, I would most certainly be less sympathetic to those who expect sympathy, but aren’t willing to give it. That’s just being selfish, IMO, and I really don’t care to deal with overly/unjustifiably selfish people. The Golden Rule is my primary guide to life, whereas it seems to me that most people preach it without truly following it themselves. It frustrates the fuck outta me.
I’m just tired of our side attempting to appeal to basic human decency when it’s been more than proven that there isn’t any.
Regardless of what you think about my or their vote, you need it. You don’t have the luxury of being exclusionary when you’re on the losing side and bleeding support.
Republicans were (in theory) on the losing side in 2022 - there was supposed to be a “red wave” that never materialized. They won (again) this time around by fully embracing being exclusionary. Seems to me Dems need to stop trying to attract those people (I think I read that Harris managed to get less than 5% of them, while losing something approaching 15% in Democrat voters), and instead focus on being an exclusionary antithesis to them. If we’re going to be a two party system, then make them polar opposites rather than just a lite version of the same side (within practical limits, of course).
“But Trump said he’d magically make eggs cheaper!!!11!!”
Reduced demand. Dead and deported people prefer plain toast for breakfast
I thought the maggots were the preferred breakfast of dead champions? Or was it MAGAts…?
Maybe he was speaking about trans people all along.
<insert “transition to greatness” tweet out of context here>
Ah, yes. ✨Slavery.✨
Wow, I’d love to be able to afford my own egg.
Bought some yesterday… The box we buy went up 3 dollars since the election.
It’s bird flu
Nope, the president wakes up every morning and sets the price based on how many times he had to get up in the middle of the night to pee.
Yeah shits crazy. Unfortunately.
Don’t worry with people like Trump and RFK on the case. Bird flu won’t be an issue at all.
Thank goodness. I was worried!
Hey gas is cheaper now than it’s been in years. Trump did that!!!
/s
If you don’t stand for the rights of others, there’ll be nobody left to stand for your’s - so get standing!
Bet you they try to repeal Loving v. Virginia too. They’ll “leave it up to the states” I’m sure, so that them and their rich buddies can keep their partners. Looking at you, Mitch.
I am emptied of all faith in their humanity or good sense.
Clarence Thomas rulling his own marriage illegal? 🤔
That’s definitely one way to get a divorce
Privileged people like him will certainly expect there to be workaround and loopholes. He’d just get a marriage cert in a state that allows it. Depend on it.
In the abortion ruling, Thomas listed off a whole bunch of civil rights-related rulings he wanted to revisit. Obergefell (gay marriage) was among them. Loving, however, was conspicuously absent, and there’s a pretty obvious reason why.
I don’t doubt it. However if Trump’s team sent it down the pipe, I doubt he’d fight much - even a principled man finds it difficult to stand up to their friends, and that he ain’t.
I don’t think they’ll send it down the pipe, or be successful if they try. The process tends to have to start at the lower courts and work their way up. In all likelihood, lower courts would simply strike it down, and the appeals court wouldn’t see any reason to change that.
There are ways to skip those intermediate steps, and they could certainly try to invent a whole new process just for the case. But when one of their biggest allies on the court has a clear reason to be against it, why even try? They have a hundred other cases they’d rather do to hurt people. If you follow the domino metaphor in OP, then Loving is way towards the back.
Why are all basic civil rights not enshrined in laws, but instead resting on brittle law precedents in the US?
Because it’s all imaginary and I can’t believe people seek comfort in a piece of paper and the concept of rule of law.
A strongman, such as potentially trump but it could be any authoritarian in any country - will just wipe his ass with the constitution and do whatever the fuck he wants. It’s not like the law is going to stop him. He’s a convicted felon and he’s still going to be president despite that. And the J6 case (the only one with any real merit, IMO) that they had four years to prosecute is now dropped.
Laws don’t matter. Laws don’t protect you. Laws exist to protect the in group and punish the out group.
The simulation ran out of computational power and this is AI trying to use the last 0.1% of the Neural Processing Unit to continue generating a story…
That’s the way English Common Law works contrary to French Civil Law
That’s not really an answer to their question. Canada (with the exception of Quebec), also operates on the English Common Law model, but we’ve passed specific laws that intentionally codify things like abortion and minority rights. Just recently we added “gender identity and gender expression” as specific categories on which it is illegal to discriminate.
So, unlike the US where the right to gay marriage is the result of a court case, in Canada gay marriage started out that way, but was then codified in law with the passage of the Civil Marriage Act in 2005. And speaking of English Common Law, the same is true in England, where gay marriage was legally enshrined in 2014.
So it’s perfectly valid to ask why the US government has consistently failed to do this.
Off topic but how does Canada square away their English system with the one province under the French system? They’re nearly opposite systems.
Louisiana runs off French civil law. They work around it.
Today I learned!
Criminal law in Quebec is still based on the federal common law, it’s just matters of provincial jurisdiction that are under civil law.
Same way the US squares away their federal system. Some areas of law are federal, some are provincial. Quebec’s use of Napoleonic Law only applies to those areas covered by the Quebec Courts. Federal matters are handled in Federal Courts, so they’re not subject to Quebecois legal principles.
Maybe Canada was more proactive than the USA but it’s still a result of the type of legal system they use, that wouldn’t happen with Civil law.
There’s still plenty of things in Canada that are left to precedence, we don’t pass laws every time something comes up.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
“Leaving it up to the states” is how we ended up with gay marriage being legalized federally by the scotus….
I’m sure this one will get right on that.
Imagine these words, but different pic. Just propaganda.
Gotta gotta gotta go, true sounds, of a revolution,…
Was in my pyjama and haven’t heard Agnost Front the last 20 years so thanks for reminding me of this song.
