Biden and the Democrats have already taken away abortion rights and are in no rush to give them back. I'm tired of them getting away with it because "it was the Republicans who pulled the trigger." Ya, and the Dems stood by and did nothing to stop it for 51, God damn, years
not a fan of biden, but saying he took away abortion rights is literally wrong and anyone reading this should question why someone would frame it that oversimplified way.
Questioning that leads me to think that while the commenter is literally wrong, they were not attempting to state a literal fact. They are trying to point toward inaction (re: abortion not being codified) and equating it to the action of criminalisimg abortion (even laying blame on the inaction over the action).
That's obviously literally false, but it's also pretty clear to me that isn't the point they were making, which you appear to have chosen not to engage with. Anyone reading this should question why logical one-ups take precedence in discourse over addressing the material argument. Just an outsider perspective, what I don't see here is any reason for animosity for placing blame on democrats for something they were inarguably involved in. When blamed by someone totally estranged from the right, that feels the D's are supposed to be their representation, it's pretty piss poor representation in some respects and arguing it isn't just seems ridiculous to me
Anyone reading this should question why logical one-ups take precedence in discourse over addressing the material argument.
Instead I challenge folks to consider what place illogical and false statements have in a discussion, especially when there's no acknowledgement of exaggeration, and it's over a medium that allows for no additional context (Lemmy comments). Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Your best friends might know that you're actually a fairly well informed person who just exaggerates a little when getting on your soapbox, but there is no such assurance of that online, we've all read far more insane comments.
A certain orange Cheeto always had his acolytes interpreting his statements by going "what he REALLY meant was....", let's do our best to avoid ambiguity where we can.
"It's as if the Democrats banned abortion by not taking action while roe v wade was enforced"
On the whole I agree with you, I don't think it warrants such absolute statements though. I often subconsciously expect people to fill in the gaps without providing sufficient context, because of my ADHD. Discerning intended meaning behind a potentially ambiguous statement is something I do constantly and would hope others to do of my statements. I don't think I should need to disclose my condition to others as a prerequisite to converse, and I think my thoughts on various topics have value even if I'm not careful to put them forward in a well-rounded way. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt transcends the literal nature of conversations generally and instead goes to considering the material conditions of the speaker. For instance, the literal indications given by the commenter would suggest they are republican, but I'd put it to you that they consider themselves estranged from the right. Would you disagree? I'm not asking for your opinion of how appropriate their rhetoric is for purposes of advancing the causes of those estranged from the right - just to guess at the position you think they're coming from. Because if we can agree that they think they are coming from a position of progress, but you still think it's most appropriate to lambast people in such a position for speaking incorrectly on it, I don't know if either of your positions are viable towards helping that progress to come to fruition. It seems needlessly divisive and counterproductive in the context of the unity of the right. Some republicans might come out and say they're voting Biden as part of a strategy to protect their own positions in other elections, I wouldn't count on the actual republican constituency having any issues voting as a bloc.
I get that it's a tough position to be in and that you're likely trying to foster unity of the left yourself, but I'd encourage you to actually look into things such as voting uncommitted in earnest, to be able to convince people it's a bad thing more effectively, if that's still your opinion on it. If you're interested, here's a video someone I follow uploaded the other day that I felt gave me a decent and well-reasoned alternative perspective on it: https://youtu.be/63wxNNd33Cg?si=b6CY0R9_-mHB9s99
I feel like you're demanding the take part of the give-and-take flow of constructive argumentation upfront. This serves mostly to misdirect from the issue rather event attempt to tackle it, and that's why it's not compelling to me
IMO online comments are an extremely poor medium for ambiguous comments because:
There's very little context provided.
"Conversations" typically are composed of, at most, 3-4 messages from each party.
It takes a while for each party to type up their response.
Due to these reasons, ambiguities should at least attempt to be cleared up with up front.
Sure you don't have to do that, but then you just get misunderstood, wasting everyone's time.
What you're suggesting applies far more easily in an IRL conversation. I can look for body language, like a smile indicating joking. Conversations take seconds instead of minutes, and there's far more back and forth
Agree again. In this instance the commenter was pretty clearly pro-abortion though. I think in terms of speculating on their potential position with limited info, that's also a vector where you could have at least a reasonable degree of certainty about which quadrant of the political compass they fall in.
nope. i'm immeasurably frustrated with the system as a whole and believe biden to be cut from the same cloth as other presidents: barely disguised puppets for the ownership class that are forced to make impossible compromises at the expense of the working class.
they keep wars going for profit. they play with our lives for profit.
that includes people who spread misinformation in order to suppress voter turnout because they falsely equated their vote to a personal endorsement rather than a chess move.
but if it makes you feel better continue to think of me as a biden loving fool who you can write off in your culture war against whatever.
i'll be here doing direct action, calling for unionization, and getting people out to vote especially in local elections.
We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.
From day one of Roe vs Wade everyone knew that in order for this to stick it needed to be put in federal legislation. Every time this was brought up, Democrats say that there was no way Roe v. Wade would be overturned. And here we are, Roe v. Wade is overturned. Are the Dems furiously trying to ram through legislation to give back abortion rights? No. They are campaigning that this time will be different while Womens' lives are endangered.
Oh and Roe v. Wade being overturned puts all 14th amendment decisions in jeopardy. Can't wait for these same empty promises to be dug out when the conservatives start targeting interracial marriages next.
When was the legislature in Democratic hands, and they were not busy with more important political priorities (which, if you were living in the early Obama 1st term, people wanted a lot out of government than codifying Roe V. Wade).
What is the point of wasting everyone's time if the Republicans control part of the Congress?
When crapping on Bidey boi I’d recommend letting folks know that part.
Personally I can be tough on him again after the election. This is an unfortunate time to express certain entirely reasonable and truthful feelings. Feeling the way you do means you’re an ally to what’s good in the world. Expressing it right now could be counterproductive to those same sensibilities.
Sadly it's still a "both sides" argument that is either horribly misinformed. I am not saying people have to like Biden. But "they are different pieces of shit" still implies similarity to Trump. Which... no.
I get where you're coming from, but I disagree vehemently. Your comment invokes the same logic that has always been used to suppress the voice of the left. The US is never not in election mode, and people like you will, with all good intentions, always claim it's "not the right time."
I find it rather absurd to say that during an election is an inappropriate time to criticize a politician. If a politician is so weak and uninspiring that mere criticism of them from the electorate could cost them the election, they're a bad candidate and shouldn't be running. That sort of political ego is what got us Trump in the first place.
Have you been on the Internet in the last 8 years? It's been the same thing since 2016, without stopping. Online Democrats can't ever let anyone criticize the party, or take any blame for their own past failures. Especially the one that gave us Trump in the first place.
For the after the election smirk, I'd refer you back to the comment you first responded to. Not to mention, Democrats were similarly arrogant and entitled in 2016. The Democrats treat this like a race to the bottom and run the most centrist candidates they think they can get away with. And if they ever lose, they just scream at the left for not supporting them enough.
Biden and the Democrats have already taken away abortion rights and are in no rush to give them back. I'm tired of them getting away with it because "it was the Republicans who pulled the trigger." Ya, and the Dems stood by and did nothing to stop it for 51, God damn, years
not a fan of biden, but saying he took away abortion rights is literally wrong and anyone reading this should question why someone would frame it that oversimplified way.
Ah the ole “blame democrats for what republicans literally did” tactic.
Questioning that leads me to think that while the commenter is literally wrong, they were not attempting to state a literal fact. They are trying to point toward inaction (re: abortion not being codified) and equating it to the action of criminalisimg abortion (even laying blame on the inaction over the action).
That's obviously literally false, but it's also pretty clear to me that isn't the point they were making, which you appear to have chosen not to engage with. Anyone reading this should question why logical one-ups take precedence in discourse over addressing the material argument. Just an outsider perspective, what I don't see here is any reason for animosity for placing blame on democrats for something they were inarguably involved in. When blamed by someone totally estranged from the right, that feels the D's are supposed to be their representation, it's pretty piss poor representation in some respects and arguing it isn't just seems ridiculous to me
Instead I challenge folks to consider what place illogical and false statements have in a discussion, especially when there's no acknowledgement of exaggeration, and it's over a medium that allows for no additional context (Lemmy comments). Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Your best friends might know that you're actually a fairly well informed person who just exaggerates a little when getting on your soapbox, but there is no such assurance of that online, we've all read far more insane comments.
A certain orange Cheeto always had his acolytes interpreting his statements by going "what he REALLY meant was....", let's do our best to avoid ambiguity where we can.
"It's as if the Democrats banned abortion by not taking action while roe v wade was enforced"
On the whole I agree with you, I don't think it warrants such absolute statements though. I often subconsciously expect people to fill in the gaps without providing sufficient context, because of my ADHD. Discerning intended meaning behind a potentially ambiguous statement is something I do constantly and would hope others to do of my statements. I don't think I should need to disclose my condition to others as a prerequisite to converse, and I think my thoughts on various topics have value even if I'm not careful to put them forward in a well-rounded way. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt transcends the literal nature of conversations generally and instead goes to considering the material conditions of the speaker. For instance, the literal indications given by the commenter would suggest they are republican, but I'd put it to you that they consider themselves estranged from the right. Would you disagree? I'm not asking for your opinion of how appropriate their rhetoric is for purposes of advancing the causes of those estranged from the right - just to guess at the position you think they're coming from. Because if we can agree that they think they are coming from a position of progress, but you still think it's most appropriate to lambast people in such a position for speaking incorrectly on it, I don't know if either of your positions are viable towards helping that progress to come to fruition. It seems needlessly divisive and counterproductive in the context of the unity of the right. Some republicans might come out and say they're voting Biden as part of a strategy to protect their own positions in other elections, I wouldn't count on the actual republican constituency having any issues voting as a bloc.
I get that it's a tough position to be in and that you're likely trying to foster unity of the left yourself, but I'd encourage you to actually look into things such as voting uncommitted in earnest, to be able to convince people it's a bad thing more effectively, if that's still your opinion on it. If you're interested, here's a video someone I follow uploaded the other day that I felt gave me a decent and well-reasoned alternative perspective on it: https://youtu.be/63wxNNd33Cg?si=b6CY0R9_-mHB9s99
The proper reply to being called out for relaying an untruth is "my bad, what I meant is __", and life goes on. That's how discourse should go.
It's not asking for much.
There's no need to pander to ambiguity when a miscommunication is easily corrected.
RE: actual subject on Biden, no horse in this race. Just chimed in because I hate seeing potential misinformation.
I feel like you're demanding the take part of the give-and-take flow of constructive argumentation upfront. This serves mostly to misdirect from the issue rather event attempt to tackle it, and that's why it's not compelling to me
That's fair.
IMO online comments are an extremely poor medium for ambiguous comments because:
Due to these reasons, ambiguities should at least attempt to be cleared up with up front.
Sure you don't have to do that, but then you just get misunderstood, wasting everyone's time.
What you're suggesting applies far more easily in an IRL conversation. I can look for body language, like a smile indicating joking. Conversations take seconds instead of minutes, and there's far more back and forth
Agree again. In this instance the commenter was pretty clearly pro-abortion though. I think in terms of speculating on their potential position with limited info, that's also a vector where you could have at least a reasonable degree of certainty about which quadrant of the political compass they fall in.
I bet you think he honestly tried to forgive college debt as well...
nope. i'm immeasurably frustrated with the system as a whole and believe biden to be cut from the same cloth as other presidents: barely disguised puppets for the ownership class that are forced to make impossible compromises at the expense of the working class.
they keep wars going for profit. they play with our lives for profit.
that includes people who spread misinformation in order to suppress voter turnout because they falsely equated their vote to a personal endorsement rather than a chess move.
but if it makes you feel better continue to think of me as a biden loving fool who you can write off in your culture war against whatever.
i'll be here doing direct action, calling for unionization, and getting people out to vote especially in local elections.
Thank God we got that ceasefire he's been talking about for weeks!
Could you provide evidence of that claim?
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/
Has the Justice's opinions. Relevant quote:
From day one of Roe vs Wade everyone knew that in order for this to stick it needed to be put in federal legislation. Every time this was brought up, Democrats say that there was no way Roe v. Wade would be overturned. And here we are, Roe v. Wade is overturned. Are the Dems furiously trying to ram through legislation to give back abortion rights? No. They are campaigning that this time will be different while Womens' lives are endangered.
Oh and Roe v. Wade being overturned puts all 14th amendment decisions in jeopardy. Can't wait for these same empty promises to be dug out when the conservatives start targeting interracial marriages next.
Democrats didn't overturn RvW, tho...
No, they didn't codify it into law, but that's not the same action. Nor would it have been super easy to "just" codify it.
I get that but they didn't even try
When was the legislature in Democratic hands, and they were not busy with more important political priorities (which, if you were living in the early Obama 1st term, people wanted a lot out of government than codifying Roe V. Wade).
What is the point of wasting everyone's time if the Republicans control part of the Congress?
Personal question: planning on voting for President?
Sadly yes. Voting Biden. But I consider them to both be pieces of shit. Different pieces of shit, yes, but still pieces of shits
When crapping on Bidey boi I’d recommend letting folks know that part.
Personally I can be tough on him again after the election. This is an unfortunate time to express certain entirely reasonable and truthful feelings. Feeling the way you do means you’re an ally to what’s good in the world. Expressing it right now could be counterproductive to those same sensibilities.
That’s all I have on self censorship for now :)
Sadly it's still a "both sides" argument that is either horribly misinformed. I am not saying people have to like Biden. But "they are different pieces of shit" still implies similarity to Trump. Which... no.
Comparison like that should definitely be avoided.
I get where you're coming from, but I disagree vehemently. Your comment invokes the same logic that has always been used to suppress the voice of the left. The US is never not in election mode, and people like you will, with all good intentions, always claim it's "not the right time."
I find it rather absurd to say that during an election is an inappropriate time to criticize a politician. If a politician is so weak and uninspiring that mere criticism of them from the electorate could cost them the election, they're a bad candidate and shouldn't be running. That sort of political ego is what got us Trump in the first place.
Already having a nominee is a big factor here. I hope you didn’t hear this kind of thing about Biden 2021, 2022…
!remindme after election for a response 😉
Have you been on the Internet in the last 8 years? It's been the same thing since 2016, without stopping. Online Democrats can't ever let anyone criticize the party, or take any blame for their own past failures. Especially the one that gave us Trump in the first place.
For the after the election smirk, I'd refer you back to the comment you first responded to. Not to mention, Democrats were similarly arrogant and entitled in 2016. The Democrats treat this like a race to the bottom and run the most centrist candidates they think they can get away with. And if they ever lose, they just scream at the left for not supporting them enough.