- 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.
You cant even pretend to be pushing a “womens rights” pillar while we actively support the slaughter of innocent women in gaza.
I would put literacy right in front because apparently there’s a disturbing amount of people who don’t know what words mean almost.
To understand anything, you need a sense of literacy.
21% of American adults are illiterate (54% read below a 6th grade level)
17% of Canadian adults are illiterate.
I keep coming back to these points as it’s important context when understanding the news.
That’s… horrifying. I had no idea it was that high. I have to wonder how anyone can be illiterate, after watching my kids learn to read, and how little effort it took (on my part I mean, they were putting effort into it, because they wanted to)
I should point out that a portion of the stat comes from immigrants who are fully literate in their native language.
National literacy as a topic forms an interesting picture that I don’t fully understand.
Yeah the data is kinda fucky cause of that, this has always been a factor too one of my ancestors spoke decent English but could only read and write in German he was considered technically illiterate.
That makes more sense…
Because there are still a lot of old folks around from when education was… not so well enforced
It looks to me like it’s ordered from more progressive to more fundamental, so literacy should be the last one, really. Trans rights is the newest major one, so it’s the first to fall.
“But Trump said he’d magically make eggs cheaper!!!11!!”
Maybe he was speaking about trans people all along.
Ah, yes. ✨Slavery.✨
Wow, I’d love to be able to afford my own egg.
<insert “transition to greatness” tweet out of context here>
I guess you gotta break a few eggs’ civil rights before you can make a fascist omelet
Entenmann’s donuts were buy one get one free right after the election. Bless Trump for turning donuts to twice as many just by thought alone!
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…?
Bought some yesterday… The box we buy went up 3 dollars since the election.
I paid 2.45 which is basically what it was in 2019. I legit don’t even understand where this narrative comes from. Yeah eggs got expensive like 2 years ago. They got better.
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
Identity politics, and the concern silos that come with them, have failed. It’s my personal opinion that they were pushed as a means to divide us against each other over things that don’t threaten the profits of the capitalist class.
Fight for human rights.
Yes, human rights includes LGBT+ rights.
Yes, human rights includes women’s rights.
Human rights at work as well. Human rights to housing and Healthcare. No half measures, no negotiations.
We tried to negotiate with the 1% in the early 20th century. Much like negotiating peace with Putin, it was just a temporary cease fire while the 1% consolidated their power and let their propaganda networks soak the human mind.
Class warfare
If you don’t stand for the rights of others, there’ll be nobody left to stand for your’s - so get standing!
I believe in free speech but I’m more concerned about freedom from religion than freedom of religion.
Democratic secular society is on a sharp decline all over the world.
Although you don’t like religion, it’s one of the dominos that fall in the line of authoritarian control. When it falls, other dominos fall with it.
If we are to (correctly) have freedom of religion, the working class must remain armed to put down the religious’ inevitable grasp at taking over the nation state.
These people are mentally ill, and work tirelessly to make their delusions your reality.
Source: your reality
If we are to (correctly) have freedom
of religion, the working class must remain armedto put down the religious’ inevitable grasp at taking over the nation state.Edit: I’m not disagreeing with your details, I’m just simplifying.
Religion has been used for millennia as a mechanism for authoritarian control.
Like I said, I support free thought and speech. Be religious if you must buy into a cult of mass delusion. But true freedom means freedom from religious law in a secular and democratic society.
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.
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.
I see it as less about punishing the out group and more about controlling them instead.
Those locked up from the war on drugs might beg to differ
Because our legislature is dysfunctional in its very structuring.
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.
Criminal law in Quebec is still based on the federal common law, it’s just matters of provincial jurisdiction that are under civil law.
Louisiana runs off French civil law. They work around it.
Today I learned!
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
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…
Clarence Thomas rulling his own marriage illegal? 🤔
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.
That’s definitely one way to get a divorce
He’ll be asked (forced) to step down during this Republican’s President’s term, and he’ll be replaced by a christian nationalist white dude. And then they’ll overturn Loving v Virginia.
Nah he’ll get declared an “Honorary Aryan” so the marriage remains legal.
Then when the 2028 auto-coup happens, he’ll get purged like what happened with the Jewish Nazis.
It will be known as the the Night of the
Long KnivesAR-15sLeopard… Face… ye know
🤦♂️
It’s scary how realistic that sounds.
They’d just rule that you can’t retroactively kill marriages, but future ones could be banned. Or something similar.
“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.
We need to regroup. Anyone who cares for the above needs to join the same movement. Put your personal feelings aside and stand together, it’s the only chance we’ve got to stop everything from unraveling.
I agree, but how?
We need our grassroots organizations to collaborate more and we need people to move towards those organizations. That’s how I see it anyways. It’s not going to be easy, a lot of these organizations are slow moving due to their financial burdens and lack of general support, but there’s more urgency now than ever.
As well as lack of affordable or even free healthcare, lack of affordable housing, lack of vacation time, lack of decent pay, lack of maternity and paternity time, lack of affordable healthy food.
It is really becoming lack of anything and everything. The only thing that has rights in this country are guns and vehicles.
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.
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.
Moral imperative ≠ logical imperative. There’s really no way around it.
People voted for Trump because he told them their issues are going to be addressed. You cannot tell someone that’s willing to vote for a wannabe fascist that their rights are somehow being secured three dominoes removed from trans rights. That is an abstract concept. Despite the fact that children should be capable of understanding abstract concepts, these are people who clearly cannot.
You have to appeal to them first because there are more of them. They are selfishly stupid and the simple virtue of your message is not enough to persuade them.
The people you’re talking about also see things as adversarial when they don’t need to be. It’s just part of having a mind saturated in negativity. If we’re going to do something to help the trans people, it must mean we’re hurting everybody else somehow. By admitting their existence is valid, others are somehow diminished, in the eyes of the paranoid conservative.
I think you’ve misinterpreted the picture. These are supposed to be domino bricks. “trans rights” isn’t the first brick because it is the most important - it’s the first brick because it’s the first that’s going to fall.
We can walk and chew gum at the same time. And fuck the very concept of “sjw”, that shit isn’t helpful
It sucks because I know a lot of people referred to as SJWs, myself among them sometimes, and my read is that what pisses people off about them is not exclusive to minorities or the left wing, but the label tends to just apply to people advocating for the oppressed, and the behavior often comes from pain and vulnerability.
A lot of marginalized people lack the space irl to be politically active in a meaningful way. This goes double if you’re trans or closeted or showing up irl is dangerous in any way. Online, you have a platform and can speak your truth, but that’s about it. Social media platforms are incentivized to put a bunch of chuds you don’t agree with in front of you to keep you engaged, and so people end up angrier and angrier, stuck constantly responding to bigotry but never able to actually do much about it, or even hold a good faith conversation. Pet peeves become big sore spots because people keep poking at them and it feels like there’s nothing that can be done to change how anyone feels. Small disagreements over language become big blowouts because it’s probably the tenth time it’s happened today and it might not feel like anyone’s on your side.
Funny enough the person I know who fits this description the most is a right-wing incel, marginalized in some ways due to neurodivergence. He’s prone to big conspiratorial blowouts at the mere mention of climate change or queer people because he sees it as necessary to “educate” people. I don’t think most would call him an SJW yet his engagement with politics and the ways in which he pisses people off are exactly the same.
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.”
Sorry now every time I see someone mentioning the “weird to follow the weird laws” pipeline I get unduly agitated at how fucking hard the DNC dropped the ball this cycle. Now I’m more than surprised as ever that Hilary won the popular vote with campaign managers like these.
literally no need to apologize! it’s absolutely fucked
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.
But anyone who views the Democratic party as truly supportive of trans rights, certainly in any kind of national sense, is sorely mistaken.
It’s ironic if we were to say this before the election, there would be a very different response. Now the ship is sinking so to speak, critique is more receptive… just not when it counts.
For a split moment I figured the whole “weird” rhetoric would expand to actually describe how people are legitimately being discriminated against with legislation, but yeah just follow the laws… even if they mean parental rights for rapists and fucking windows on school bathrooms. Never hoping for a political outcome again.
by the only people willing to represent me.
Make more political parties viable by enacting state level electoral reform.
You could not have missed the point harder
I’m taking points by consensus. Luckily, Lemmy has those built in and the congregation ain’t with you, dog.
Yeah but the point is that if they hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
It’s easier to ramp up an authoritarian regime if you start off bullying a group that’s small and easy to marginalized. Then you work your way up from there.
What you’re saying is like “All lives matter” compared to “Black lives matter”. The point of BLM wasn’t that Black lives are more important, per se, but that they need more attention right now.
Like if you’ve got two kids, and one scrapes his knee, and the other cracks his head open…obviously (hopefully) you love both of your kids, but one of them is clearly in more need of immediate attention. They matter more right now, in the current context.
The entire point of the image is that protecting and engaging any and every marginalized community is a fundamental part of healthy democratic institutions. And part of the iterative process of improving and strengthening our democracy involves seeking out opportunities for creating egality. There is no singular perfect state where you just stop - you always need to be looking within for opportunities to make things better.
Don’t think of it as just advocating for minority rights, think of it as advocating for human rights wherever that advocacy is needed.
It was a distraction tactic and they fell for it brilliantly.
What you call a distraction, I and my fellow trans called a wave of violence. Just because it didn’t effect you, doesn’t mean there was not real world consequences. Many trans individuals suffered more hate, more violence, a few even died. That has become the new normal. Thanks.
What do you think of Sanders, he has spoken out in the past about how putting identity politics with regards to gender, race, etc ahead of economic issues isn’t helping Democrats. That doesn’t mean he’s not staunchly in favor of supporting rights for those minorities though. Are you coming down on that side of the issue or are you saying eliminating the hard line on rights for minorities of all sorts as a party position/talking point would be favorable, and then once in power maybe resume supporting them?
Do you think Republicans using trans rights/bathroom bills as a wedge issue was effective in the last decade? There is something to be said for putting your best foot forward, using your most widely popular policies to run on being a strong winning strategy but I’m not sure how I feel about it. Is this another example of the new “when they go low, we go low” thought that’s happening this week? Yeah weird times all around, my trans friends are looking a little scared.
So what you’re saying is that you work with shitty individuals
Yep. NC.
It is what it is. You don’t turn a wrench without seeing a few confederate flags on a few Dodge rams.
and you don’t turn their money away, either. The Benji’s didn’t have swastikas on them even if his fenders did.
I am someone who wouldn’t give “T people” rights the time of day. It’s absurd. If they’re American, and a legal citizen, then they have the same rights as me. I don’t have the time or patience to focus on a group that makes up a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population. We have real problems.
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).
Removed by mod
I’m not saying ignore it, I’m saying quit using it to appeal to people who don’t give a fuck.
That’s not going to win their votes or even their support. It doesn’t help, benefit, or even involve them from their perspective.
Or just keep yelling at them and calling them bigots.
That works, I guess.
(It doesn’t)
i don’t understand the secondary text on those past rights. What are they supposed to represent? I can’t even read any past Free Love
- Trans rights
- Gay rights, Freedom of expression
- Women’s rights, Free love
- Free speech, Democracy
- Freedom of religion, Modernity
- Literacy
How is this a meme?
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.
The right to not be genocided… apparently negotiable.
I’d just like to highlight how unhelpful this type of discussion is.
It lines up with the message of the image. If you’re willing to sacrifice one set of rights then all rights are up for negotiation as well. Feel free to explain to me how that’s not the case.
- Did throwing the election to Trump and the Republicans do anything to help save Palestine or end the war?
- How would you describe what happened on October 7th, 2023?
- Are you willing to concede that the Palestinians also have had agency and culpability in the events that have lead up to today?
- Do you accept that calls for “Palestine to be free, from the river to the sea”, as well much of the historical rhetoric of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, has been openly calling for genocide against Israeli Jews?
- Would you be willing to acknowledge that both Israelis and Palestinians have some loose historical claim to the Levant based on the tribal lineage of their people going back >3000 years?
- Would you describe Islam as a “religion of peace” even though it was spread almost entire through violent conquest going back to ~600AD?
- Do you believe in a two-state solution?
- Do you believe that America has a duty to the protection and support of its own people over any duty to solve the problems of the rest of the world?
Do you believe that Israel has done anything wrong?
You’re jumping in full throated here
Of course Israel has done wrong things, as have the Palestinians. This is a war that has been going on for ~80 years in a part of the world that has been fought over and ruled by dozens of empires over the last 3000 years.
Both sides of this conflict are guilty of terrible shit, but none of that is worth holding American secular democracy hostage.
Most of what you typed had nothing to do with America.
