#GOP Logic

[poorlittleyaoyao]

A thing about trying to plot out QS canon-divergence fixit where the marriage is averted is that the obvious solution to “she was already pregnant before they knew the truth” is, well, end the pregnancy. The wider world doesn’t seem to know that she’d conceived prior to marriage, so can’t be more than a month or so along as of the wedding for it to be plausible. People have been inducing abortion in dire circumstances despite physical risk and moral stigma throughout history. QS has magic at her disposal and the means to remove herself from society unnoticed during the recovery period, and even if it’s taboo, is it more taboo than incest?

#tfw when the text’s misogyny results in everyone operating on post-Roe Texas logic #*post-Dobbs rather #like come on JGY grew up in a brothel he would know how shit gets done #I can only see him not suggesting it if he’d witnessed someone dying from attempting to give themselves an abortion #and his panic brain was like ‘it would be Just Like That and she would DIE HORRIBLY so we must marry!’ #and even then it doesn’t explain why QS’s parents wouldn’t suggest it! #or (more distressingly yet still plausibly) pulling a Hoster Tully and forcing it #don’t mind me I woke up in the middle of the night and started pondering and now I’m grumpy #bc it’s like you either have to go FULL divergence where she and JGY never hook up at all #or you don’t give her the information until she’s already in the marriage and her options are much more limited #bc if she finds out at the same time JGY does possible outcomes either feel like a PSA about the importance of abortion access #or (if she marries someone else or otherwise sticks it out) GOP glurge about how keeping a pregnancy is always fine and good in the end #miscarriage cw #just in case

[dontmean2bepoliticalbut]

#us politics #memes #shitpost #ben shapiro #the daily wire #libertarians be like #fuck libertarians #libertarians #lolbertarians #logical fallacies #gop #conservatives #Republicans

[theworldssmallestgiant]

Remember, students, remember when you asked me what yanks are like? This is what they're like. They'll posture and pose like smart and reasonable people, but the moment you deviate even an inch away from what they've been slave trained into believing, They do this. And take it from personal experience, They'll try to kill you if they think they can get away with it. Never go anywhere alone with a yank and never listen to what they say. Mentally, they are spoiled children. Morally, they are beyond saving.

I have sooooooooo many more of these. Typically, a yank copying my responses and then sending that text to someone else as an anon. Ans then send me the link. I didn't think anyone would fall for something so obvious, but many people have. Which is ironic, since I spend all my time talking about how yanks are emotional, stupid and will fall for cheap tricks, and then they fall for cheap tricks. It's funny, actually.

#america #americans #discorse #debate #owning the libs #facts and logic #centrism #gop #republicans #traditional gender roles #conservative #conservativism #conservatives #facism #anti facist #fuck facists

[mudwerks]

Imagine if someone decides, ‘Oh there’s a drop box. I’m just gonna put some explosives in it and blow it up and burn all of those ballots' ...and now those votes don’t count at all.

Rubio Argues Ballot Drop Boxes Are Dangerous Bomb Targets While Rejecting Gun Control

#you can't beat that non-logic #rubio = literal idiot #GOP stupidity #politics

[aficionadoenthusiast]

yo writing tips cause if I read one more comment or reply that is essentially name-calling imma jump through my phone and strangle someone

i am by no means a professional, but i am trained in persuasive/argumentative writing, so i thought i'd write up this little guide for anyone looking to improve their persuasive/argumentative skills. or you can just use it to win arguments idc. 

also, idk if all writers are like this, but if you're arguing with me and you don't follow these points, i will most likely not take you seriously. not to be mean or sound like a snob, but i've been doing p/a writing for about seven years now. i've seen and done it all, and i have earned my right to be picky about what arguments i accept. follow these rules if you don't want me to laugh at your shitty arguments. 

my guide to persuasive/argumentative writing

keep in mind, this isn't just for long pieces that you worked hard on. all writing that is meant to persuade should contain most if not all of these elements. 

level of importance in order of least to greatest is green, yellow, red.

normally I'd start with grammar and mechanics as that's typically the most important part in making sure your writing is taken seriously, but as this is social media, i think it's ok to ignore that one. I myself am anti capital(ist) :) i will say this: a lot of writers develop pet peeves within grammar and mechanics that they just can't ignore, so be mindful of your oppositions/audiences' feelings there. my personal pet peeve is misused commas.

first, we must distinguish persuasive/argumentative writing vs hate writing. p/a is meant to expose readers to the writer's point of view and convince them that it's good. hate is just rude and meant to piss people off. honestly, I have no respect for it. if you can't even tell me why you believe what you do, then maybe there's a reason people are disagreeing with you. always make sure you're using p/a and not hate. 

make sure you have a strong opening. shorter pieces don't need hooks per say, but you still want to give readers a reason to stay. 

develop your topic. whether this is establishing a thesis with supporting points or just throwing out solid one liners that can't really be argued with, your topic needs strong support.

avoid rhetorical questions. as an opening or closing statement, these are fine, but once you get into the meat of your argument, you need to answer more questions than you pose. if you feel like you need a rhetorical question, maybe ask yourself why you feel you need it there and if you can answer it with the knowledge you have. if you can figure that out, write the answer. if you can't, nix it. i know in your writing classes in school, they told you rhetorical questions make the reader think, but at this point in the argument, the writer should be doing the thinking, not the reader. there is no reason you should be asking your audience to answer questions on your own topic. 

no name calling. this is the basest form of arguments. they make you sound stupid, and they are always false. there is no supporting evidence in name calling. the act itself is a logical fallacy (see logical fallacies below). rest assured if there is any name calling at all in your argument, i am laughing at you. 

find and cite sources. (if this wasn't social media, this would be red) if all else fails, your writing will look ten times better if it is backed by professionals. if all you rely on is your own knowledge and opinions, that can be an opportunity for your opponent to topple your argument. alternatively, anecdotes can be considered sources in some cases, but be careful with anecdotes as there is no way to prove them. 

sources must be credible. no websites with no authors last updated in the 90s. authors should have relevant credentials or proven years of experience, their credentials must be relevant, source must be current (typically go for last five years, but can be expanded/shortened depending on the topic), and source must be objective.

when possible, call on original content. that's firsthand evidence of things that actually happened in the book/movie/game etc. 

do not rely on things the original author said. this is fandom; the author has no control on fandom. 

be respectful. you may think disrespect helps you win an argument by attacking your opponent's character, but it actually does the opposite. it makes it seem like you can't come up with a solid argument, so you're resorting to pettiness and dumbassery. beyond that, no social media argument is worth bullying. and remember, disrespect includes name calling, condescension, insults, etc. 

use as much figurative and descriptive language as you want. the adverb rule has no bearing on argumentative writing. whatever gets your point across in the most entertaining way is encouraged. 

don't just be inflammatory. not everyone agrees with you; that's the point of the argument. take the time to explain your position in a respectful manner that isn't just meant to piss off your opponent.

try to match your opponent's level. if you find yourself going above and beyond and sounding, i don't really wanna say smarter, but more technical ig, it comes off as condescending and pretentious. on the other hand, if you underuse the technical stuff, it makes you sound like you don't know about your topic. find a nice middle ground that matches your opponent. and remember, the object of p/a is not to inform or insult, it's to convince people that your point of view has merit. 

address the other side. this is called a rebuttal. if you are introducing the topic, that is, you are the op, you must have a rebuttal. acknowledge the opposing viewpoints and explain why you don't like them. this can go anywhere in the piece of writing, but it's usually toward the end or at the very beginning. if you are adding comments or replies, you will probably be opening with the rebuttal. 

address your own side. this may seem obvious, but you'd be surprised how many people think just attacking the opposition is good enough. don't just shit on the opposing side. your entire argument should not be a rebuttal. explain why you don't like the other side, yes, but you must also explain why your side is better. 

NO LOGICAL FALLACIES (list below) you'll notice all the fallacies are in red; that's because logical fallacies will destroy an argument faster than a nuclear bomb.

(i should preface this by saying this is not meant to convince people to be pro sex work legalization. just for some reason, that is what popped into my head while i wrote this. none of this has been researched.)

ad hominem: an attack on character rather than an opponent's argument. these can be obvious or subtle, and often include name calling. an obvious example is:

person 1: i support sex work legalization because [insert reasons]. 

person 2: yeah, well, you’re ugly, and you smell bad, you dumb fuck. 

person 1 may be ugly and smelly, but that has no bearing on their argument, and the name calling, while funny (to me in this context), is an automatic flag. another example is:

person 1: i support sex work legalization because [insert reasons].

person 2: your blog is filled with nothing but gruesome images of animal abuse. stfu. 

person 2’s argument may be true and does expose person 1 as immoral, but it has nothing to do with sex work legalization, in which case person 1 should be blocked (and probably reported), but first listen to their argument. it could still be good. a more subtle example is:

person 1: i support sex work legalization because [insert reasons].

person 2: you run an arts and crafts blog. why should i listen to your opinion on prostitution?

it may not seem like person 1 has any reason to care or know about sex work legalization, but they can still form a good argument, especially if they have good sources or personal experience. always at least try to hear someone’s argument before you cast it off as bad. 

hasty generalization: a claim based on little to no evidence. an example is claiming all prostitutes are somehow criminals outside of prostitution charges (ex. drug abuse, theft, trespassing, pedophilia, etc.), so sex work should remain illegal because the writer knows of a couple sex workers that were also shoplifters. this kind of thing drives stereotypes and prejudice, and it also makes the writer seem rude and arrogant as well as brands them as someone who jumps to conclusions, completely upending their argument. 

false cause (post hoc ergo propter hoc) - event 1 happened just before event 2, so event 1 caused event 2. unless the writer provides evidence of event 1 causing event 2, there is no reason to spread the belief that event 1 caused event 2. an example is someone saying that a recent legalization of prostitution in some area caused a random uptick in car accidents without providing any citations or evidence. there may be a connection, or there may not be a connection, but until we have more information, we must assume there is no relation. 

either/or: there are only two sides, and the only options are the extremes. basically, the writer offers an ultimatum that typically contains other logical fallacies. an example is someone saying we can either keep prostitution illegal which would minimize crime, decrease stds, and keep people from having sex outside marriage, or we could legalize all forms of prostitution which would make everyone want to be a prostitute, increasing stds, pregnancy out of wedlock, crime, rape, and immorality. beyond this argument containing multiple fallacies i have already discussed, it assumes there are only two options: absolute illegality or absolute legality. this is not how the law works, and it is not how most things work. the majority of topics have levels; the part that should be debated is which level works best. 

strawman: writer misrepresents opposing viewpoint on purpose and uses this skewed perspective to attack opposing viewpoint as a whole. an example is anti-prostitution legalization people saying pro-prostitution legalization people want everyone to become a prostitute. the antis took the pros argument and twisted it to better fit their argument which is that all prostitutes and those in support of them are evil. 

red herring: distraction. irrelevant info is presented alongside the often bad relevant info to distract from a poor argument. an example is someone trying to establish that prostitution legalization would be bad for the community and backs up their claim with a source about std rates. while distantly related, std rates in this context don’t actually have anything to do with prostitutes being bad for the community because the writer has not established that prostitution causes an increase in stds. 

ad verecundiam: appeal to authority. often paired with the bandwagon fallacy, this is when the writer cites a public figure even if they have no relevance to the topic. an example is an anti-prostitution legalizer citing trump as an authority on prostitution. while he probably has experience on the topic (don’t cite me, this is a joke), trump is not an authority on the topic. no matter how much he wants people to blindly follow his views, he is not and never will be an authority. in fact, a leader making themself seem like an authority on everything to the point that their followers want to cite them for everything is a quality of a dictatorship. 

bandwagon: everybody’s doing it, so it must be correct. popular in advertising, an example is if a bunch of people suddenly started shaming prostitution (more than normal i mean), so the writer says that many people can’t be wrong, so more people should do it. this fallacy also involves stuff like peer pressure, citing celebrities as authorities, dubious social movements, etc. 

circular argument: using a previously unevidenced point to prove another point. an example is if someone said something like, “prostitution shouldn’t be legalized because prostitution is illegal.” this is true, but it also doesn’t prove anything. 

slippery slope: performing an action will lead to a chain reaction. an example is saying legalizing sex work will lead to more sex which will lead to increased pregnancies which will lead to increased abortions which will lead to increased illegal abortions which will lead to…etc. if the right measures are taken, none of this will happen, yet people still employ this fallacy because it’s easy to ignore the obvious solutions to the chain reaction in favor of a faulty topic. 

appeal to pity: basically using a sob story to garner support. an example is someone attacking a sex worker and using the defense that their parents got divorced because their father hired prostitutes and it destroyed their marriage which in turn destroyed the attacker's childhood. alternately, if the case goes to court, the attacker may fake needing a cane or other medical equipment to sway the audience with sympathy. 

appeal to ignorance: the argument hasn’t been proven wrong, so it must be right and vice versa. an example is someone accusing their husband of being a pimp because there’s no evidence to contradict them. alternatively, someone could say there’s no way their husband is a pimp because there’s no evidence to contradict them. 

end of logical fallacies.

use logos, pathos, and ethos. logos: logic. basic argument. using solid evidence to back up a claim. pathos: emotion. evoke strong emotion, negative or positive, in the reader to draw them to your side. ethos: character. make yourself an example of competence, credibility, and knowledge on your topic. 

and that's all i have atm.

#writing #persuasive writing #argumentative writing #writing tips #writing advice #writing help #logical fallacies #logos pathos ethos #anti gop #pro prostitution legalization #accidentally

[mafia-witch666]

Why hate people just because you don't understand their experience and existence?

The right demonizes literally anything and anyone they cannot put themselves in the shoes of and it's sad, un-empathetic, and just downright disgusting. THEY DO NOT EFFECT YOU WHATSOEVER. Trans and gay people just existing and having equal rights and experience as you has never effected anyone. You fucking psychos just think for some reason that all gay people have this agenda to cause harm, to make your kids gay, and to trans your children ((( that is literally insane and impossible - I can't even believe I have to fucking say this ))). Newsflash! None of these people are trying to have gay sex with you or marry you! No one is pointing a gun to your head and saying you have to live as a queer person and you have to suck dick every day and fight the urge to be straight - which ironically is kindof exactly how you would prefer lgbtqia+ people to live. NO ONE IS TRYING TO SUCK YOUR DICK AND MAKE YOU TRANS. and no one is asking you to understand their experience. BUT you can treat them as fucking human beings with equal rights and just let them live.

Gay and trans people have literally no agenda than to live their lives happily, peacefully, as themselves with the same equal rights and respect that straight and cis people have always automatically been afforded. And just because these issues seem "NEW" and "SUDDENLY OVERWHELMING" you should know that throughout history gay people have ALWAYS existed, trans people as well as drag performers HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED in EVERY CULTURE and honey it's fucking actually extremely documented.

So "WHY NOW?!" you ask? Because the right knows all they have left to fight on and to hold the party and it's believers together are the insanely stupid, hateful, and incomprehensible wedge issues that they scream on their stupid platforms for a few months at a time until even their base is tired of hearing it.

So the new wedge issue of the conservative *evangelical* party is targeting gay and trans existence. They don't want us to exist and they're flipping on their normal and humane takes on just letting gay and trans people live and exist, and are now saying we should all just go back in the closet or simply die because we are being open about our existence. High / slightly tipsy rant over. It's extremely incredibly depressingly disappointing to hear my parents suddenly be anti-trans and gay when they were NOT LIKE THIS WHEN I TOLD THEM I WANTED TO BE A BOY IN 2006. They just accepted that was me for OVER A YEAR as I struggled with my identity. I still identify more as they and i accept she but I'm me and I dont feel like a "woman" 99% of the time. But thanks to Fox *News* they suddenly are only repeating the horrible hateful, white supremacist 1488 crap, the great replacement theory, bigoted, hateful, disgusting rhetoric that actual fuckin demons like Tucker Carlson spew all fucking week.

#conservatives #fox news #fuck fox news #fuck tucker carlson #trans rights #lgbtq community #gay rights #republican logic #gop #republicans #fuck evangelicals #white evangelicals #republican party #fuck republicans #fuck conservatives

[trumpchumps]

Clearly he’s never heard them speak.

#knuckle draggers #mouth breathers #trump chumps #maga #gop #maga hypocrite #circular logic

[theproducerstake]

#tptmemez #theproducerstake #news #politics #comedy #logic #truth #maga #gop #liberals #chucky #merrychristmas

[wilwheaton]

Rarely have we seen anything like the past few days in Tennessee. Three Democrats, for joining with thousands of students walking out of class and in many cases, going to the Nashville statehouse, after the latest school shooting right in that city, were threatened with expulsion from the chamber. Did they molest children? No, that was a GOPer who was allowed to remain in the state legislature. Domestic violence? Nope, he got to stay. Were they under federal investigation? Yet again, a Republican. Nope, Justin Jones, Justin Pearson & Caroline Johnson were "loud" and "behaved wrong" (read "uppity") by joining with protestors. This same logic did not apply to a former GOP state rep who peed--yes, you read that right--on another member's chair. That was totally cool. And, of course, in the state where the Ku Klux Klan was founded...what do you think the end result was? Here's a video to explain exactly what happened, why, how this will affect the 2024 election and how it fits in with so much else the GOP is up to these days.

Guns, Racists, And Predators: A Guide To Approved TN Decorum

Say it with me, and say it loud: Republicans are garbage.

[tyronesmith]

😒 #gop #logic https://www.instagram.com/p/CejyriNJAV6/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

#gop #logic

[qqueenofhades]

what gets me is whenever any of these people says not to vote, and you ask them what the alternative is, they usually throw some tantrum about how it shouldn't be their job to fix this country and they're not expected to know (or start calling you a neoliberal or a bootlicker lmao) and i just. i don't get that? not voting, especially in the current climate, is a big deal. i don't think it's unreasonable to ask anyone who advocates for that what the alternative is. i'm not expecting you, online leftist, to magically know how to fix everything. i am expecting something from you if you're gonna tell me not to vote, especially when we both know that helps the gop. like, how dare we ask them to defend this big choice they're telling us to make?

their position boils down to helping trump and the republicans but any time you remind them of that they get upset. what is the alternative? what plan do they have? it would be one thing if there was another option that they'd come up with, but they haven't and don't seem interested in doing so. mutual aid and organizing is only going to take us so far and it'll be a hell of a lot easier to do it with biden in office than trump

The whole "it doesn't matter who's president/in charge of the government because mutual aid and organizing is the only valid way to do community engagement" is the leftist version of the Brexit nutcases who, and I swear I am not making this up, argued that it was fine if the UK left the EU trading sphere/single market/customs union with nothing to replace it, because "Britain is a nation of farmers and can grow food in our back gardens!!!!" Yes, because you're so devoted to your stupid ideology that you think the large-scale collapse of society, a major world power, a western democracy, and everything else will have no effect, and you can just do your little Facebook mutual aid groups and happily shout on Twitter at anyone who disagrees with you. Never mind the fact that this would obviously and immediately harm vulnerable people the most and that nobody, not even the Online Leftists themselves, actually wants to live in the Violent Revolution Total Anarchy World they masturbate to. Maybe this makes me a neoliberal corporate shill, but I'd rather that the world got better, instead of worse. I would actually prefer that myself, my friends, my family, my whole life, the whole country, and the rest of the world wasn't sacrificed on the Great Revolution Altar, but I shouldn't worry. We have mutual aid. At least as long as a) you have never said anything the Online Leftists even slightly disagree with, since they're sure as hell not the kind of people I would trust to have my back in any large-scale societal collapse, and b) I guess they'll all be growing food in their back gardens too, rather than using any of those dirty "government" or "society" things to supply their basic needs. We're saved! No need to worry. Bring on the anarchy.

Aside from the fact that Online Leftists, as I have said before, think that moral action begins and ends with posting the Right Opinions on social media at the correct timeframe and any other action or engagement with a flawed system or basic reality is heresy, they don't like being challenged -- i.e. "if we don't vote, then what do we do?" -- because a) it questions their authority as supreme arbiters of morality, and b) it means that there should actually be an action in place of cutting out something so consequential as voting, which likewise clashes with their "everything will be fixed by Magical Thinking" viewpoint. They don't want to be asked what to do in place of voting, or in anything at all; they want to think their correct thoughts and judge anyone who doesn't, regardless of how logically incoherent these things are or the inevitable outcome of those decisions, because nothing bad is ever their fault, or even the Republicans' fault, or anyone else at all except for the Democrats and/or "the West." I mean, yeah, if they're going around to preach the Don't Vote Because It's Actually Evil gospel, it's the bare fucking minimum to expect that they have something to offer in return besides Ye Olde Bolshevik cosplay fantasies. Since they don't, they get tetchy when you point that out.

Also, while I know it's the social media fashion that everything has to be the worst thing ever and we have plenty of the "Biden is also a genocidal fascist but I guess vote for him or something" utterly-minimum-standard posts going around, I will point out why that rhetoric is a) wrong and b) unhelpful. (Not that I expect it will make a single difference to anyone who has to get their internet cred by yelling about how Biden is a fascist, but still.) No, Biden is not a fascist by any logical definition of the word, you would have to do a lot of work to convince me that he is personally genocidal beyond what is demanded of any post-1948 American president who exists in an extremely complicated international sphere with long-standing alliances (such as, yes, with Israel) and indeed not quite a bit more progressive than literally every one of his predecessors, and it makes those actual words useless. If you claim that "Biden and Trump are both genocidal fascists," you are utterly effacing those categories as any kind of critical or useful distinction. You can't argue for any difference, you can't point out policy essentials or nuances, you can't make the most basic of empirical observances or come to a judgment on whether any part of that statement is true, because language has been deliberately stripped of meaning and used to score Cool Internet Leftist points. How can we explain what fascism or genocide actually are and what to do about them, if it's just what you call everyone as a matter of course whenever they disagree with you? You can't. That's the point.

Once again: I strongly disagree with the idea of just giving Israel/Netanyahu a blank check to keep committing atrocities, but I also need to repeatedly point out that Biden isn't doing that. His initial unconditional support of Israel after October 7 (which at the time was the correct response) has shifted to a much more measured and conditional approach where he has muted the overtly pro-Israel statements and started talking about a two-state solution and the need to protect the lives of civilians and trying to keep a lid on what could become a REALLY bad situation with all kinds of war-hungry powers eager to jump into the Middle East and blow it completely to hell. As I have said in my other posts, Trump will not do this. Trump will do the exact opposite. Which is why Netanyahu, who doesn't like having his hands tied precisely in the way Biden is doing, is trying so hard to get Trump back in. This also extends to the people who think that the West/the U.S. is the source of all evil in the world, but they're somehow the only people that can make actual choices or have real agency. Everyone else is just an American puppet; everyone is being lied to or manipulated by America/the West; nobody ever chose anything of their own free will; America/the West could roll in and put a stop to everything bad if they "really wanted to," but choose not to because etc. etc., Evil. As such, this completely fact-free belief is basically the central starting point for Online Leftism, which as I have also said, is now beyond useless and verging on just as deranged and actively dangerous as the fascists, especially since they are 100% willing to enable far-right fascism however and whenever they can because something something, That Will Show Us.

Anyway. Yes. Whew.

#anonymous #ask #politics for ts #israel hamas war #okay i think i'm done talking about this for today #but yes

[mariacallous]

Recently, Planned Parenthood released a statement on the Oct. 7th attacks and the broader conflict between Israel and Palestine. Their statement condemned Hamas’s attacks on civilians, and specifically condemned sexual assaults committed against Israeli women during the violence. They also noted how thousands of Palestinian women and children had been killed in Israel’s counteroffensive, stated the need for Palestinian women to maintain access to reproductive and maternal healthcare, and condemned both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.

The social media reaction to such a balanced and empathetic statement? Furious, unrelenting anger.

The statement was quote-tweeted thousands of times by social media users outraged by the statement. Planned Parenthood was accused of spreading Israeli propaganda, ignoring Palestinian deaths and fabricating rape claims, and enabling genocide. These outraged users aren’t conservatives who always oppose Planned Parenthood—they’re progressives furious that an organization they normally support put out a statement they hated. Now there are calls to end donations and Planned Parenthood staffers are fighting with donors. Their own employees, affiliates and organizers are making public statements against them.

This outcome was predictable to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of social media dynamics. And it raises an obvious question—why release a statement at all?

Metastatic social justice

It’s actually quite common for organizations and activists to get into hot water these days by addressing areas outside their expertise. Trans activists in Vancouver loudly insisted there can be no Trans Liberation without Palestinian Liberation, which caused pushback all over Canada. Two years ago, New York City’s Pride organizations courted controversy by excluding LGBT police officers from the city’s Pride parade in the name of racial justice. There are YIMBY housing organizations taking a stand on abortion rights and climate organizations demanding a Federal Job Guarantee.

There’s a common theme here. Organizations that appear to be single-issue advocacy groups are increasingly commenting and taking stances on issues outside of their narrow focus. Activism is becoming more global in nature—if you are an activist for one cause, you’re expected to speak up about all causes now. It’s not enough to ‘stay in your lane’, you need to be protesting and advocating for all forms of social justice. Pro-choice advocacy is now part of your racial justice non-profit. Jobs packages are in your environmental bills. Your LGBT organization has a stance on ‘Defund The Police’ and your housing group has a stance on Israel/Palestine. Social justice is metastasizing.

This phenomenon has happened on the right as well—see the NRA transitioning from being a somewhat non-partisan group to essentially being an arm of the GOP—but it’s especially striking in the current progressive movement. There’s a real sense in which NYC Pride is no longer an LGBT advocacy organization, but rather an overall progressive social justice organization. That may sound like an exaggeration, but they kicked out a gay organization (the Gay Officers Action League) to accommodate another form of social justice. It’s the internal logic behind a LGBT Pride march excluding LGBT people.

This also explains the online fury at Planned Parenthood. Their statement was thoughtful and balanced, but deviated from the dominant and overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian progressive narrative. Their donors expect them to advocate not just for progressive goals in women’s health, but progressive goals everywhere.

This type of activist mission creep risks stunting the progress on the core issues that social justice advocates care about.

The downsides of missions creep

The urge towards mission creep comes from a reasonable place. If you care so deeply that you spend your free time (or your career!) as an activist for a particular issue, the odds are that you also have strong feelings on many other issues. You’re also likely to live in a bubble of activists and people who think like you, and so your conversations professionally and socially may often center around all sorts of political issues. But as an activist it’s important to remember that most people you’re trying to reach are not like you and don’t think like you.

The typical voter is over 50 and does not have a college degree. They also don’t think about politics all that much. They are far, far away from the mindset of a typical activist. And when they do have political opinions, those opinions are far more varied and haphazard than a committed political partisan would guess. I think a few minutes scrolling the twitter feed of the American Voter Bot is invaluable to understand how voters think. This bot takes real voters and profiles them in brief tweets. While some look as expected—a Democrat who supports gun control, for instance—many look like this:

Most people are a confusing mix of demographic signals, issue positions and partisan identification, and they rarely fit squarely within one political tribe. That’s the danger of turning a single-issue advocacy group into a generalized progressive messaging group—you’ll end up alienating a far wider group of potential allies than you realize.

If Issue Group X declares loud progressive positions not just on Issue X but also on gun control, abortion, Palestine, Medicare For All, trans rights, free trade and school prayer, they won’t attract a large diverse group of people who care about Issue X. They’ll end up attracting a narrow slice of progressive activists who are ideologically pristine enough to agree with them on every issue.

The ultimate result of activist mission creep is that your issue ceases to be something that people across the ideological spectrum can work together on. It becomes coded as a red tribe vs blue tribe issue, gets swallowed by the general culture war, and progress grinds to a halt as partisan warfare starts.

The most likely outcome of Planned Parenthood voicing an opinion on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not that they make any difference at all towards that conflict. It’s that they alienate their own supporters with differing views on Israel/Palestine. They’ve undercut their own ability to make progress on reproductive care and reproductive rights for no gain.

One thing at a time

None of this is to say that individuals shouldn’t care about many issues at once—they obviously should. And general purpose ideological organizations can and should tackle many policy areas. But it’s a poor strategy for single-issue groups to try to become general purpose organizations. There are real benefits to staying in your lane.

One example of a movement that has done a reasonable job at this is the pro-housing YIMBY movement. While there are some instances of YIMBY groups straying from their purpose, for the most part they’ve done a good job staying narrowly focused, and that that focus has allowed them great success.

YIMBYism is a far more ideologically diverse movement than many people realize. There are conservative YIMBYs, neoliberal YIMBYs, Democratic YIMBYs, libertarian YIMBYs, and many left or socialist YIMBYs (although in true socialist tradition, some want to break away from the YIMBY label and create a sub-label PHIMBY). This isn’t just a feel good story about how conservatives and liberals can be friends—this has a real impact on YIMBYs getting things done. It’s part of why you see both Republican and Democratic officials at the local level working towards YIMBY solutions in different cities, and why those solutions can often pass without bitter partisan warfare. It’s why the YIMBY Act in Congress had Republican and Democratic co-sponsors. It’s why YIMBYs are scoring victories in blue states like California and red states like Montana.

This sort of thing matters. YIMBYs are a big tent and they’re getting things done. It’s hard enough to make real change happen on a single policy or a single issue. Whole movements try for years and still sometimes fail. Single-issue groups trying to address every issue at once aren’t going to succeed. The urge towards mission creep is strong, and too many groups are weakening their core strengths to address problems they can’t solve. Single-issue organizations shouldn’t burden themselves with having the answer to every question, with having a stance on every issue, and with having to be all things to all people. It’s ok not to comment. It’s ok to stay in your lane and just work on one problem. It’s ok to try to change the world just one issue at a time.

[kp777]

By Robert Reich

Common Dreams

April 11, 2023

I hate to say this, but America no longer has two parties devoted to a democratic system of self-government. We have a Democratic Party, which — notwithstanding a few glaring counter-examples such as what the Democratic National Committee did to Bernie in 2016 — is still largely committed to democracy. And we have a Republican Party, which is careening at high-velocity toward authoritarianism. Okay, fascism.

What occurred in Nashville last week is a frightening reminder of the fragility of American democracy when Republicans obtain supermajorities and no longer need to work with Democratic lawmakers.

The two Tennessee Democrats expelled from the Tennessee House were not accused of criminal wrongdoing or even immoral conduct. Their putative offense was to protest Tennessee’s failure to enact stronger gun controls after a shooting at a Christian school in Nashville left three 9-year-old students and three adults dead.

They were technically in violation of House rules, but the state legislature has never before imposed so severe a penalty for rules violations. In fact, over the past few years, a number of Tennessee legislators have kept their posts even after being charged with serious sexual misconduct. And the two who were expelled last week are Black people, while a third legislator who demonstrated in the same manner but was not expelled is white.

***

We are witnessing the logical culmination of win-at-any-cost Trump Republican politics — scorched-earth tactics used by Republicans to entrench their power, with no justification other than that they can.

Democracy is about means. Under it, citizens don’t have to agree on ends (abortion, health care, guns, or whatever else we disagree about) as long as we agree on democratic means for handling our disagreements.

But for Trump Republicans, the ends justify whatever means they choose —including expelling lawmakers, rigging elections through gerrymandering, refusing to raise the debt ceiling, and denying the outcome of a legitimate presidential election.

My friends, the Republican Party is no longer committed to democracy. It is rapidly becoming the American fascist party.

***

Wisconsin may soon offer an even more chilling example. While liberals celebrated the election on Tuesday of Janet Protasiewicz to the Wisconsin Supreme Court because she’ll tip the court against the state’s extreme gerrymandering (the most extreme in the nation) and its fierce laws against abortion (among the most stringent in America), something else occurred in Wisconsin on election day that may well negate Protasiewicz’s victory. Voters in Wisconsin’s 8th senatorial district decided (by a small margin) to send Republican Dan Knodl to the state Senate.

This gives the Wisconsin Republican Party a supermajority — and with it, the power to remove key state officials, including judges, through impeachment. Several weeks ago, Knodl said he would “certainly consider” impeaching Protasiewicz. Although he was then talking about her role as a county judge, his interest in impeaching her presumably has increased now that she’s able to tip the state’s highest court.

As in Tennessee, this could be done without any necessity for a public justification. Under Republican authoritarianism, power is its own justification. Recall that in 2018, after Wisconsin voters elected a Democratic governor and attorney general, the Republican legislature and the lame duck Republican governor responded by significantly cutting back the power of both offices.

North Carolina is another state where a supermajority of GOP legislators has cut deeply into the power of the executive branch, after Democrats won those posts. The GOP now has veto-proof majorities in both of the state’s legislative chambers, which enable Republicans to enact conservative policies over the opposition of Gov. Roy Cooper, including even more extreme gerrymandered districts. Although North Carolina’s constitution bans mid-decade legislative redistricting absent a court order, Republicans just announced they plan to do it anyway.

Meanwhile, a newly installed Republican supermajority in Florida has given Ron DeSantis unbridled control over the state — granting him total authority of the board governing Disney, the theme park giant he has fought over his anti-LGBTQ+ “don’t say gay” law; permission to fly migrants from anywhere in the U.S. to destinations of his own choosing, for political purposes, and then send the bill to Florida’s taxpayers; and unprecedented prosecutorial power in the form of his newly created, hand-picked office of election “integrity,” pursuing supposed cases of voter fraud.Florida has now effectively silenced even Florida residents from speaking out in opposition to Republican proposals. A new rule prohibits rallies at the state house. Those testifying against Republican bills are often allowed to speak for no more than 30 seconds.

***

Without two parties committed to democratic means to resolve differences in ends, the one remaining (small-d) democratic party is at a disadvantage in seeking ends it deems worthy. The inevitable result: Eventually it, too, sacrifices democratic means to its own ends.

When a political party sacrifices democratic means to its own ends, partisanship turns to enmity, and political divisions morph into hatred. In warfare there are no principles, only wins and losses. One hundred sixty years ago, our system of self-government fell apart because Southern states refused to recognize the inherent equality of Black people. What occurred in Tennessee last week is a throwback to that shameful era. I don’t believe Trump alone is responsible for the birth of modern Republican fascism, but he has legitimized and encouraged the vicious rancor that has led much of the GOP into election-denying authoritarianism.

#republicans #american fascism #fascism #democracy #voter suppression #authoritarianism #gerrymandering #rigging elections

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

In the two years after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, leading to abortion bans across many parts of the south and midwest, abortion rights have only grown more popular, new polling from Pew Research Center has found.

A majority of Americans has long supported abortion rights. But more than 60% of Americans now believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases – a four percentage-point jump from 2021, the year before Roe fell.

This support transcends numerous demographic divides in US society: most men, women, white people, Black people, Hispanic people and Asian people believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. It extends to majorities of all age groups and education levels, although 18-to-29-year-olds and people with more education are more likely than other cohorts to believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

People who live under abortion bans have also become increasingly supportive of abortion access since the overturning of Roe in June 2022. In August 2019, only 30% of people who live in states where abortion is now outlawed said they believed it should be easier to access abortion. Today, 42% of people in the same states say that.

The broad support for abortion may prove pivotal in the upcoming US elections – Joe Biden’s re-election campaign has zeroed in on abortion as a winning issue as the president continues to trail Donald Trump in polls. Battleground states such as Arizona and Nevada are expected to hold ballot measures to protect abortion rights, which Democrats hope will boost both voter turnout and their own chances.

Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to support abortion rights, with 85% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters believing that abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances. By contrast, 41% of Republican or Republican-leaning voters said the same.

GOP opposition to abortion is largely fueled by conservative Republicans, since more than 70% who identify as such think abortion should be illegal in all or most circumstances. More than two-thirds of moderate and liberal Republicans support abortion rights, Pew found.

Among the groups measured by Pew, conservative Republicans and white evangelical Protestants were the only groups with majorities that opposed abortion access. Nearly three-quarters of white evangelical Protestants think abortion should be illegal in all or most circumstances.

Some people’s views of abortion did grow more complex the deeper Pew inquired. Most groups that support abortion rights ultimately thought abortion should be legal in “most” circumstances, rather than “all”. In other polling on abortion, support for the procedure tends to dwindle when people are asked whether they would back abortions in the second or third trimester of pregnancy.

More strikingly, Pew also asked Americans to evaluate how much they agreed with certain statements about abortion. More than half of Americans agreed with the statement that “the decision about whether to have an abortion should belong solely to the pregnant woman”, while only 35% of Americans say they agreed that “human life begins at conception, so an embryo is a person with rights” – a stance that would logically lead them to oppose abortion.

Yet a third of Americans said that both statements describe their views to some extent, even though those statements clash.

#us politics #news #the guardian #2024 #pew research center #polling #polls #statistics #roe v wade #abortions #abortion bans #reproductive justice #reproductive health #reproductive rights #women's rights

[beardedmrbean]

The disqualification effort against Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in the sweeping RICO case against former President Donald Trump and his allies is gaining steam.

Four of the co-defendants in the Georgia election interference case—Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, Cathy Latham and Michael Roman—revealed in Monday court filings that they are filing their own appeals in the rejected bid to remove Willis.

Giuliani is a former Trump attorney, Meadows is the former White House chief of staff, and Latham is a former state Republican leader. Roman is the former Trump aide whose attorney first revealed that Willis was in a personal relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade in January.

They now join Trump, former Georgia GOP Chairman David Shafer and seven other defendants in their bid to challenge Judge Scott McAfee's March ruling.

Earlier this year, McAfee allowed Willis to stay on the case after several defendants took issue with Willis and Wade's "improper" relationship and moved to have her booted from the case over the alleged conflict of interest. Willis and Wade have admitted to the relationship, which they say ended last summer. They argued it had no bearing on the case.

The judge ultimately determined that their relationship did not amount to a conflict of interest but recognized that as long as the two remained on the prosecution, the "appearance of impropriety" would continue to hang over the case. He ruled that either Willis or Wade would have to step down. Wade resigned hours after the ruling.

Although McAfee chose not to disqualify Willis, he granted a request from the co-defendants to have his ruling reconsidered by the Georgia Court of Appeals. Last week, the appeals court agreed to hear the defense's case. A court date has not yet been announced.

Newsweek reached out to Willis via email for comment.

In the appeals application, Trump, Schafer and seven other defendants argued that McAfee's decision to give Willis "the option to simply remove Wade confounds logic and is contrary to Georgia law."

Their application also went a step further, arguing that Willis' disqualification would be "the minimum that must be done to remove the stain of her legally improper and plainly unethical conduct from the remainder of the case" and that the only "truly appropriate remedy" would be an entire dismissal of it.

Willis indicted Trump and 18 co-defendants for their alleged efforts to overturn the results of Georgia's 2020 election last August. Four of those defendants—bail bondsman Scott Hall and former Trump attorneys Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro and Jenna Ellis—have pleaded guilty to charges. Trump and the remaining 14 co-defendants have denied any wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty.

"President Trump looks forward to presenting interlocutory arguments to the Georgia Court of Appeals as to why the case should be dismissed and Fulton County DA Willis should be disqualified for her misconduct in this unjustified, unwarranted political persecution," Trump lawyer Steve Sadow said in a statement responding to the appeals court decision.

#nunyas news

[stephenjaymorrisblog]

How Will All This End?

Stephen Jay Morris

5/4/2024

©Scientific Morality

            Ever hear of the expression, “a self-fulfilling prophecy?” What does that mean?  You can convince yourself that something negative will happen in the future; you can convince yourself by repeating it repeatedly. Does it usually happen? Well, if you believe in a supernatural belief system, you can make something happen by chanting for it. If you believe in logic, there’s a 50-50 chance that something you predict may happen by coincidence.

            I know, I know—in the past I promised not to make any predictions. But America in the year 2024, is too juicy to pass up. Let’s just say, I’m only theorizing. Is that Kosher? OK! Let’s get to it.

            Many self-created prophets want that Nostradamus statue on their living room mantel, above the fireplace. But most predictions fall flat on their face. What is America’s number one concern as it is shoved down our collective throats? The presidential election in November 2024. Let’s see. Before the primaries, both political parties declared their candidates for president.

That didn’t happen in 1968. The Democrats had three candidates running for president. RFK, Eugene McCarthy, and Hubert Humphrey. So did the Republican Party. Nelson Rockefeller, Ronny Reagan, and Dick Nixon. (Can you believe that Dick Nixon beat Ronny Reagan?) So, this not like 1968 at all.

Second of all, will there be riots at the Democratic convention in Chicago this summer? Same as in 1968—yes. Will there be any trouble? Not really. In 1968, there were dozens of protest groups, from the Civil Rights movement to the Black Panther Party. Also, from SDS to the Yippies. The City government consisted of Blue Dog Democrats. What are Blue Dog Democrats? Right wing Democrats. Yeah, there was such a thing! After all, Rockefeller was a Liberal Republican. The Mayor, Richard J. Daley, was a Red Neck conservative, and he loved the police force and the military.  Now, in 2024, the Chicago city council are mostly left-of-center Democrats. Nothing will happen on the streets of Chicago because the Liberals will negotiate with the protest leaders. And make deals with them. Unless police provocateurs or Israeli agents start some shit. But I highly doubt it.

            So, what about the Republican Convention? In 1968, they had theirs in Miami Beach Florida. It’s funny; the Democrats had theirs at the same place in ‘72. There were riots there. Looking back, the so-called media always focused on the Democratic Convention. They loved it when the Left fought Liberals. People forget when the Republicans had a riot near their convention in ’68, Blacks rioted at Liberty City and the media blacked it out. (Pun intended.) In 1970, when White students at Kent State got shot, it was front page news. However, when Black students got shot by cops at Jackson State, that appeared on page 18 in the newspaper. So, when the GOP have their convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this year, the media will downplay any demonstrations. If you still think the media is liberal, maybe you should go to your primary care provider and get tested for early-stage dementia.

            Now, between Biden and Trump, who will win? Biden is senile and Trump is demented. A lot can happen before November. Biden could drop out of the race for an elderly illness. Or he could die of natural causes. Keep your eye on Kamala Harris. She might be our first female president. If Biden does survive, he will lose the race.

            What about Trump? He could win, but he’d be very ineffectual sitting in a prison cell. Keep your eye on his vice-presidential choice. They might be our next president if Trump wins. It cracks me up how some of his sycophant followers portray him as some type of superhero. He must wear a girdle to keep that fat belly from falling on his dick! His arteries are so clogged with junk food, he might have a massive heart attack while sitting in the prison cafeteria. Plus, he has obvious signs of dementia; just listen to how he talks. I love how supporters of both candidates deny that their candidate has any illness. If Trump survives, he will barely win. The outcome may depend on which candidate dies first.

            Now, about this talk over losing our democracy. We never had it! For decades, the Chuds have claimed that we are a Constitutional Republic. The Liberals say we are a Liberal Democracy. Who’s right? Who cares?! This two-party system will always be a two-party system. If we were a true Democracy, we would have 17 political parties—just like Israel. But no, we have this fake rivalry between left and right. “Democrats are for the working man.” No, they’re not. “The Republicans are for individualism and Jesus.” Really?

So, as for this ultimatum of either we elect Biden or we get fascism versus if you vote for Trump, you’ll be raptured and float up to heaven…Fuck off, please! Nothing is going to happen in November. Even if Trump is elected, America will survive. If Biden wins, America will survive.

It’s time for a new constitution! It’s time for a one world anarchy!

Whatever!

#stephenjaymorris #poets on tumblr #american politics #poets of tumblr #anarchopunk #baby boomers #anarchocommunism #satire #anarchism #youtube