709
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2024
709 points (99.3% liked)
politics
19136 readers
3681 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That's pro-choice my man.
It's surprising how often "pro-life" people turn out to be pro-choice when pressed a little on the realities of people's lives. They seem to maintain the pro-life stance only through a refusal to think about difficult situations - which makes no sense since the whole debate is precisely about difficult situations.
And they commonly just don't seem to understand what pro-choice means. They think it means being someone who just loves abortions and thinks they're great and unproblematic and everyone should get one. They don't realize there are no such people, because they've never actually asked and listened, or given it any thought.
Cognitive dissonance is fucking wild.
*edit I definitely am not using that term correctly. Double think? Someone help me out here.
Holtorf: That's just a story. What's more important is the policy.
The policy is the whole fucking problem! His hypocrisy is an issue because, even with a complete lack of any ability to empathize with different people in different circumstances (which I assume as a default from right-wingers), he ought to understand this situation because it did happen to him. Yet he just doesn't care. Christ, what an asshole.
"The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" By Joyce Arthur (copyright © September 2000)
This quote pissed me off. I'm fucking pro choice AF and this to me just says this interview wasn't anything but to make him feel and look stupid and strengthen identity politics. It is gross. A real thoughtful response would have GRASPED onto that admittance that it is a medical procedure and point out how the law has hindered necessary medical treatment for fear of courts deeming it "illegal" because now politicians with power and monetary motivations get to decide what is medically necessary and not anyone with education in medicine or science even.
Grab those "liberal" threads they tried to deny is reality and pull it to the forefront don't just butt heads with stupid fucking onelines that could make a headline.
That's pointless. You could get them to admit that pro-choice is the only fair and rational position, but then they'd just go and vote for more restrictions on abortion because that's what gets them re-elected.
You have to play hardball with the modern Republican party. Embarass them and energize Democrats to replace them. There's no reasoning with them.
I'm not talking reasoning with him. My point is that this is identity politics journalism and not even the core point. There is so much hypocrisy in the anti-choice crowd and making one look like an idiot isn't going to change their minds.
Abortion access is also not a thing all democrats care about, or something all Republicans care about either for that matter. Which is wild as this actually impacts the entire country, especially every person able to conceive. It is crucial we continue to discuss and drive the point home that it is a medical procedure that denying or restricting access costs lives. Don't give them that inch that sometimes it's different and is murder, it's not Schroeder's cat on if it's a fetus or a baby. A journalist can call him out on his hypocrisy while shutting down his rhetoric as well.
But this is just look at this pro-life hypocrite guys. Can you believe it we found another one! Add it to the pile. This isn't teaching anyone, the public, anything. I thought that was the point of journalism and the free press.
I take great offense at the it's pointless rhetoric. It is never pointless, you don't have to convince him or change his mind but you CAN and should strive to change the minds of people listening. We don't form our opinions in a vacuum.
Embarassing someone like this is how you convince anyone listening who hasn't made up their minds. They're the politically uninformed. They vote based on vibes, and "oooh Republican got owned" is a vibe.
Don't get me wrong, I detest these people and frequently ridicule them. But if well reasoned holistic arguments could convince them, they'd already be convinced.
Even more importantly, Democrats who already know where they stand but need more "energy" to convince them to get off their asses and vote will resonate with this. They need someone fiery. Dark Brandon is very successful with them.
Thank you for the discussion and self reflection your responses caused! I do mean this genuinely.
I think maybe I'm not expressing clearly that I'm not mad he ridiculed and embarrassed him. I guess I just wanted an "and then"; don't just burn them, bury and desecrate the body. Show depth of just how awful and hypocritical they are. But maybe that was clear and people still disagree! Idk so just throwing out that clarification one more time to quell the anxiety beast.
In hindsight I was definitely looking at this emotionally and reacting as such. I did not read the article as a transcript of an interview in mind, which I really should have. I do still believe he let him get away with a lot though.
Paying for an abortion then immediately saying that the abortion wasn't your choice isn't just hypocrisy, it is a nice little blanket that he can wrap around himself that people might not take beyond face value of the words. But dude voted with his dollar. Call him out on THAT.
They get away with SO MUCH and I'm sick of seeing only one Itty bitty detailed being called out in the press AND social media.
Sorry this isn't at you just another passionate tangent. Totally see your point, I'm also never gonna be able to believe it is pointless to talk about because I started as someone who didn't even know which is conservative and liberal. Like the words had no context. But reading thoughtful posts and discussions did teach/show me a lot to think about. Stuff like this where we aren't on the same page but at least are on the same chapter in the same book.
Someone is ALWAYS listening.
However I think I WAS wrong with misplaced judgement and this wasn't the type of media where my criticism would have made a difference and maybe not even be as helpful as is. I don't wanna double down, when I watched and read the article the next day it was a lot harder to hold onto my initial take and I shouldn't be trying to. So yeah definitely eating my hat a little. And thank you again!
I can get behind an "and then". Thanks for discussing in good faith, it's a rare thing nowadays.
I want to agree with you, but... We have decades of that just not working.
Anyone able to be persuaded by what you're describing would have been persuaded by the obvious hypocrisy of the answer itself.
Mockery is a rhetorical device that can be persuasive, and we don't always need to be nice to people when their open hypocrisy is destroying lives.
he got his girlfriend an abortion while limiting the rights of his constituents.
done deal. nuff said. if you don't get the obvious hypocrisy that's on you mate.
Sound bytes are more valuable to the journalists employer than all that full story nonsense. Why don't they realize true revolution and change would generate far more income and viewership than this bullshit ?
I mean, I'd rather he have no kids, so I agree that him being the father should be an exception.