3-27-22 8:45 •
Qualifications for the Court
ReDo: What kind of racist is Biden!? He said he wanted a black woman for the supreme court. Specifically. Choosing by race is the definition of racist! He needs to pick the most qualified person, period. If that's a white male, so be it. Why does it have to be a "diversity" pick?
Diversity results in better decisions.
According to research by Cloverpop, companies with diverse and inclusive teams “lead to better business decisions up to 87% of the time.” Diversity plays an active role in better inclusive decision making, not just from a team perspective, but from an overall organization standpoint.
Source
New Research: Diversity + Inclusion = Better Decision Making
Source
Why Diverse Teams Are Smarter - Harvard Business Review
Source
There is no one "most" qualified jurist. There is a pool of candidates whose credentials are all sufficient. So, it's perfectly valid for Biden to feel that this particular viewpoint would add to the deliberative power of this court.
•
What We Need for the Future
WP: How do you see the future of this country?
Are you optimistic or deeply afraid?
The world is in trouble. We have an estimated 60 harvests left in our depleted agricultural soil. Our green areas are desertifying and our wilderness is burning. Right-wing authoritarians are gaining power on every continent. It will take a mass movement to salvage our civilization.
We will need to switch to clean energy very quickly. For this I recommend liquid salt thorium reactors. They are safe and clean and thorium is plentiful in every country.
We need to capture carbon dioxide from the air. For this I recommend adding crushed rock and bio-char to agricultural soil. This will also help restore nutrition to the crops.
We need to protect what is left of our environment. For this I recommend retooling most of our military efforts as civil defense corps.
We need to restructure society so that everybody gets enough. For this I recommend a mass mobilization for political and economic accountability. It's time for a truth movement.
We need to come together to celebrate and grieve in fellowship. For this I recommend togetherness movements centered around values and wisdom. Like religions, but true.
If we can do things like this, I think there could be a future.
WP: Okay. Nicely said.
Butterfly: The choice to stoke "culture wars" by the extreme right is also troubling.
Anon4: You mean, by the extreme right and the extreme left. There, fixed it for you.
Who is the extreme left? Like what person.
Jammies: I don’t know people per se. But extremism on either side should be feared.
Anon4: There's always extremes to everything.
Sure, but do they have power? If you can't even name one, the answer is no. Extremes are a threat to stability only if they have movements, leaders & widespread support.
Anon4: Only 10% are violent, but the other ones have extreme views.
Such as?
Anon4: Getting rid of police, making people accept medical treatments they don’t want, destroying people’s lives because they used a bad word 25 years ago, needing legal control over every aspect of other people’s lives down to what headwear they have to wear on a bicycle.
The ones that call themselves liberals but don’t actually support people having liberty and instead prefer conformity.
First of all, are you aware that support for "defunding the police" collapsed in 2021? Joe & the Dems' new slogan is literally "Fund the Police." So, most of this is caricature, which I would suggest is part of the problem.
Secondly, the role of police, and the role of government in public health, are topics of legitimate political debate, with a range of legitimate views. People are not "extremist" just because they don't agree with you.
Third, liberals believe that in order to exercise true liberty, people have to be protected from exploitation by bad actors. That is why Democrats were the party of organized labor, women's lib and civil rights.
Finally, the question is about the future of the USA. I would say that caring about democracy, the environment and the marginalized are the main concerns that need to be addressed to ensure a positive future. There are reasons to suggest these are NOT the concerns of the Republicans.
Anon4: Lol oh no, "defunding" lost support once they realized they had increased crime dramatically in every single area that tried it?
No, the cities that had the most increases in crime had actually increased their police budgets.
"In a nutshell, there doesn’t appear to be evidence that the defunding movement has caused violent crime increases," David Carter, a criminal justice professor at Michigan State University, said in an email.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/01/28/fact-check-police-funding-not-linked-homicide-spikes-experts-say/9054639002/
Anon4: No, they didn’t. In the most woke cities in the country murders alone have risen 82% in some areas.
The homicide rate in the least woke cities went up too, while rates for almost all other crimes went down. The increases in *just* homicide rates are attributable to factors like the stresses of the pandemic and increased gun ownership.
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/11/republicans-blame-democrats-defund-police-national-crime-increase-2020-fact-check/7641800002/
Anon4: The role of the government being able to mandate our healthcare for us is an extremist view and doesn’t have anything to do with liberty, it’s dictatorship to allow it.
Most countries allowed some vaccine mandates.
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/countries-making-covid-19-vaccines-mandatory-2021-08-16/
Anon4: Democrats used to be about increasing rights, not anymore, most have flipped into supporting loss of rights now.
Such as?
Anon4: “ Give me freedom or give me death “ has never been so important as it has been this year has it? The left now believes that freedom equals death and that means it has no more place in our lives. That’s what extremism looks like.
No, that is what caricature looks like, the literal demonizing of the opposition. The Democrats and the left are actually milquetoast centrist incrementalists who barely do anything. Their greatest threat is that they will not do enough.
In the meantime, most Republicans still believe outright bullshit like Stop the Steal, and are still supporting its leaders. They are limiting the franchise and actively dismantling the dams that prevented the last attempted coup. Additionally, they are running back the clock on women's rights, trying to closet gays and criminalize trans kids. They are trying to prevent teaching kids the truth about the civil rights movement, through hysterics over CRT (which is not taught to kids). Worst of all, they are ignoring and denying climate science while the planet begins to burn.
This is the most serious threat to our rights and our future.
Jammies: Burn, baby, burn!
Anon4: I’ll make you a deal, I’ll vote for trans kids to have complete control over their medical treatments without fear of societal retribution if you vote for every adult to have complete control over their vaccination status without fear of societal retribution.
If by "societal retribution" you mean "criminal investigation," then sure. I'd be fine with pre-pandemic standards, except in emergencies.
The point is, it's possible to have nuanced discussion of the appropriate line between public and private health, and differing on this is legitimate political discourse. It does not mean that people who disagree with you are extremists who think "freedom equals death" and so "it has no more place in our lives." That is extreme rhetoric.
And of course it has literally nothing to do with whether it is right to investigate the parents of trans kids. That kind of revanchism is extreme also.
3-04-22 1:06 • Transgender Abuse
WP: The Gov of Texas is authorizing investigations of abuse for all families of trans kids.
CP: I agree with him. Don't you remember that woman on Cafemom who said she WANTED her kid to be gay?
WP: Are you saying the state should investigate to help kids who are forced by their parents to be trans?!
CP: If you don't think there are some parents out there, so desperate to show how woke they are, that they'll push this on their child, then you're delusional. Hell even some transgenders will tell you that. They are the other side of the coin from the parents who would disown their child.
Maybe the state needs to check every "straight" kid and make sure they are really straight. Many parents are so desperate to show how "normal" they are, that they push straight on their gay child.
WP: Exactly!
3-01-22 4:56 • Ukrainian Suffering
Lars: People in Ukraine are suffering because of the Russian invasion. A moral God would not allow this!
FH: Would you let a child learn from suffering a skinned knee, or steady every wobble?
In my beliefs, pain and suffering are preparations, and those preparations benefit both the soul that endures it plus the generations that come after it. To suffer is to gain strength. A child is preparing for adulthood, a soul is preparing for the next life.
Some suffering is strengthening; some is just needlessly horrible. Plus, providing relief from suffering is one of life's greatest joys. So, our effort as moral beings should be to alleviate needless suffering where we can. That is also strengthening.
2-22-22 2:22 • Who Gets to Heaven?
Cherylynn: I believe what the Bible says: "None but the righteous shall see God."
Does that include Muslims?
Cherylynn: The Bible says that no man comes to the Father except through Jesus. So, IMO, no.
Why can't they tell?
Cherylynn: What are you talking about?
How is it that you can tell that Muslims will go to hell but they can't tell? They pray to God five times a day. They are trying to do His will. How is it they never hear what He wants?
Cherylynn: I am a Christian. So, I'm going by what the Bible says.
Why don't Muslims do this? You can tell that the Bible is right and they are wrong. Why can't they tell? Are they blind, stupid, or evil?
Cherylynn: These are my beliefs based on what the Bible says.
Could you be wrong?
________________________________________________________
Cherylynn: They don't do it because they're Muslim. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Why are they Muslim? Why would anyone be Muslim when God wants everyone to be Christian? How is it that you can tell that God wants them to be Christian instead of Muslim but they can't tell? Are they too blind to see what God wants? Too deaf to hear Him? Too stupid to understand? Or what?
Cherylynn: Could I be wrong? There's always the possibility that everyone could be wrong. However, I talk to God daily. So, I doubt it. :)
Muslims talk to God five times daily. How is it that makes you right and them wrong?
Cherylynn: Generally speaking, people usually practice the religion they were raised with.
Yes, they do. So how is it good that Muslims, who are doing their very best to know God and do God's Will practicing the religion they were raised with, do not go to Heaven?
Cherylynn: Again, my answer is because they don't go through Jesus.
How is that good?
Cherylynn: What do you mean?
I am asking, in our opinion, how is to good that people who love God with all their hearts, who spend their whole lives trying their very best to know Him, and who sincerely think they are doing His will, don't go to Heaven? How is it just?
Cherylynn: I don't have the answer to that.
Well, that is a problem, because it makes it seem like the central tenet of your religion is extremely unjust.
Cherylynn: I just know that the Bible says in order to get to God, you have to go through Jesus.
That would be unjust. As you point out, most people continue in the religious traditions they were raised with. Generally speaking, our Muslim brothers and sisters, who are good people like ourselves, are trying really hard their entire lives to do what they think God wants in the religion they were given. Substitute the word 'Muslim' for the adherents of other religions and the implications are the same.
It is unjust that those who do their best with what they are given would be tortured for eternity in separation from the God they love.
Cherylynn: Just because they think so, that doesn't mean that they're right.
They feel they are. Is it possible to think you are right, to check with God every day to make sure you are right, and still be wrong?
Cherylynn: Also, God is a Just God. It's in the scripture.
You are what you do.
Cherylynn: I know many Muslims that think I'm going to hell.
Does that make it okay?
p.s. Hell in Islam is very much merit-based, as opposed to membership-based. So I'm afraid that doesn't really speak very well of you. You might want to rephrase it.
________________________________________________________
I want to thank you again Cherylynn for having this conversation with me. This is an important topic and I appreciate being able to discuss it with you.
Cherylynn: Seriously, I have had Muslims tell me that I'm going to hell because I'm a Christian.
Well, they need to check their Quran. Al-Baqarah 2:62 says, "Verily! Those who believe [in Islam], and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."
So who knows where your friends got that but it is not a tenet of Islam. And in any case it is an extremely unkind and exclusionary thing for one human to presume about another.
Cherylynn: Maybe they are just wrong.
Well, if "maybe" every Muslim is wrong, then "maybe" every Christian is wrong.
In particular, your earlier contention that your daily talks with God somehow confirm that you are right is in error; Muslims too confer with God, five times a day, and He is not telling them they are wrong, either. You might want to consider not putting forth exclusive apprehension as any kind of evidence in the future, because it is meaningless.
Cherylynn: I just know what the Bible says.
The Quran says something different. There is no reason to think the Bible is right and the Quran is wrong. Or vice versa.
Cherylynn: So, that's what I based that off of.
The world would be a better place if you did not.
For one thing, believing that Muslims will burn in Hell while you enjoy paradise in the aftelife is cruel, exclusionary, and it devalues Muslims - and any non-Christians - as human beings. It is responsible for countless holy wars, inquisitions, crusades, persecutions and witch trials. It leads to hideous prejudice and extremely cruel social policy even today.
For another, there is not one reason in the universe to think that it is true.
If Christianity is correct, it is unjust. If it is not correct, well, then, it's wrong. Either way you would be well served to question it.
Cherylynn:
I don't go around and tell people that they're wrong or anything.
That's nice, but it's not just about what you do personally. The problem is the central tenet of Christianity. Either it is wrong, or extremely unjust, or both.
Having the dominant religion in the society be wrong, or unjust, or both, is destructive. It results in a lot of bad social policy, a lot of general unreason and a lot of misunderstanding of real cause and effect.
Cherylynn: BTW: It's nice to have an actual discussion with someone online. You're very respectful and very kind. So, I appreciate and thank you for that. :-)
That is very gracious of you to say, thank you. I don't know if you still feel that way, but either way please do me the honor of considering my words. It matters.
________________________________________________________
Cherylynn, this is a particularly important topic so thank you for raising it.
Cherylynn: You see, I also have Spiritual Discernment. I can see things with my spiritual eyes that I can't see with my natural eyes.
This is that exclusive apprehension I was talking about. This is not a valid way for determining truth. Please think about this.
Your Muslim brothers and sisters, people of other faiths and none, your fellow human beings, are not different from you. Are they? Do they not posess Spiritual Discernment?
Your spiritual discernment is telling you that the Bible is correct. Well, a Muslim's SD is telling her that the Quran is correct. What is wrong with her? Does she not really have spiritual eyes? Does she not understand what her spiritual eyes are telling her? Is she just ignoring what her spiritual eyes are telling her and doing what she wants instead of what God wants?
Is she blind, stupid, or evil?
Cherylynn: If I'm not sure, I pray and seek God for His Wisdom and Guidance.
So do they. The fact is, the part of your brain which does this is designed to confirm exactly what you already believe. That's why it works to confirm Christianity for you and Islam for them. It does not actually demonstrate correlation to reality.
Cherylynn: IMHO, when you're saved, your spirit, soul, and heart are connected more than what I can truly explain with words alone. It's a certain feeling that you get, and it's truly amazing.
Well, you need to know that Muslims get that too. They feel a connection with God that fills their every moment. As do many Hindus, etc. As a matter of fact, a lot of Buddhists experience this feeling, and their religion doesn't even HAVE a god. In fact, a lot of secular and atheist people experience this feeling as well, in deep reverence and connection to the universe as it is. The fact is, almost everyone experiences this feeling, entirely regardless of their beliefs.
It is not evidence that your particular set of beliefs is right. You don't have to be Christian, or saved, or religious, to have it. It is part of being human.
2-13-22 4:01 • Open Racism
Si: The N-word and other racist slurs were hurled daily at Black workers at Tesla’s California plant, delivered not just by fellow employees but also by managers and supervisors.
A.M.: California is the most racist state in the country. It's right out in the open.
People like to pretend the south has some sort of monopoly on racism, but California is the ultimate worst.
Si: Racism is everywhere so there is no such thing as the most racist state in the country.
As a Black woman in Mississippi I can tell you, there are lots of people in the south who are extremely open with their racism too, like displaying Confederate flags.
A.M.: Flags that denote past American history are one thing, but you’d get your ass beat here if you went around as a skinhead. In Cali that kind of racism is accepted but we don't put up with it in the south.
Si: Um, let’s not act like Whites in the south take a more heroic approach to this type of disrespect, in terms of beating up racists, because that definitely isn’t true. It was very rare for white people to strap on a cape and stick up for Black People against racism.
A.M.: Oh fuck off with that “strap on a cape” bullshit… all that tells me is that you’re just as much of a racist person as anyone we might argue over.
Si: No, I will not be fucking off as long as you are using Black people to push your savior narrative and bigoted attitude towards other areas. You’re bold face lying and gas lighting to slam another state for racism the south is also guilty of.
A.M.: You know, I am done with you. I really F***ing hate racist people, and I also really F***ing hate people that try to make others feel like shit for standing up against racism.
You really fucking hate black people who can't appreciate all you are doing for them.
Maybe you should just stop hating people. That would help.
It's no coincidence that the Civil Rights movement happened when this country was at its most prosperous and successful. It takes an extremely high level of widely-shared material prosperity in order for society to care enough about human rights to enforce equality.
Now that things are getting tight, every old division is going to resurface. In this place, race is the main division.
We should be learning the lessons of our history with big "Do Not Repeat" signs on them, instead of suppressing it. We should be sharing the resources we have accumulated instead of hoarding them among the few. There's still time for steps forward, but it will take a major change.
A.M.: Ok… I’m done.
It’s been nothing but tedious talking to y’all… you would turn someone saying it’s shocking how some places allow blatant racism into “she hates black people”
It’s pretty obvious now that y’all would argue anything at all just to argue with me… I’ll help you save your breath.
**Deletes Account**
bob: well but you did say that she hates black people.
Hi Bob, thanks for the chance to clarify.
I said that she hates black people who don't appreciate all she is doing for them, ie, people like Si who make her "feel like shit" for "standing up against racism."
Except, dismissing the Confederate flag as a piece of American history (rather than a hate symbol), claiming that "you’d get your ass beat" if you showed racism in the south, etc. is not "standing up against racism." It's perpetuating racism, as Si noted, through lying and gaslighting.
On other occasions, A.M. "stood up against racism" by decrying Families of Color Night at the playground as anti-white, and claiming that CRT harms white kids by teaching them about Malcolm X. In other words, her main concern was "racism" against whites.
So yeah, I said it. Enough with the "really fucking hating."
2-11-22 2:11 • Canadian Trucker Protests
V: I thought blocking roads in protest was bad...
A.M.:I think that’s what everyone thought, but then it happened and people were like “no, no, this is fine…” so everyone went “oh, ok I’ll do that next time I protest something…”
Therein lies the problem with setting precedent…
That is not the problem.
The problem is that the needs of the protesters are not being met by traditional forms of protest. So people are getting more desperate, and more creative. Expect to see new heights of disruption as long as ordinary people can't live good lives.
A.M.: You know, I think I agree.
V: What are the "needs" of the truck drivers that are not being met? How does the blockade help them?
Truckers have a hard, tedious, dangerous, lonely job. It's a constant struggle for compliance; it's hard to eat right and exercise, so their health is often poor. It's hard to maintain relationships with family back home. This article spells some of it out:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/09/busi ... rtage.html
Trucking is a rough life, and it gets rougher with age.
But mainly, they have the same problems as everyone dwelling at the lower levels of the economy - they are ruthlessly exploited by capitalists who take more than they give every single day, they are pieces just to be chewed up and spat out, with no time to reach their own human potential, all while watching the superrich luxuriate. Of course people are pissed.
Unfortunately, the easiest way to maintain exploitation is to turn working class frustration against a scapegoat. That might be "vaccine mandates" but usually involves the even further marginalized - hence the hate symbols.
In other words, the blockade will not really help them, and it is furthering a hate movement. But it is an entirely predictable response to exploitation.
1-26-22 1:22 • Vaccine Mandate vs. Rule of Law
L: The Supreme Court struck down Biden's vaccine mandate for businesses. So, he is withdrawing it.
A.M.: Good. Like the libs say, health decisions are between a person and her doctor, right? The government shouldn’t be able to make laws that control our bodies.
Neera: They already do all of the time and have for the history of this country…
A.M.: You truly believe that the government has control over your body and always has, and that’s the way things should stay?
It is only because of the government that you have control over your body at all. Throughout most of history, your father had legal control of your body until he handed it to your husband. Only in an advanced democracy which respects human rights do you even have a chance to experience the kind of "freedom" you have now.
The government does not "take" your rights, government is the only thing that can guarantee them.
Neera: You mean like seat belt and helmet laws?
A.M.: That’s not your body. Those are protections that go on the outside of your body. Sort of like masks, I don’t give a hoot about mask mandates…
I’m talking about control over what happens to your body itself. Like what is injected into it, or as I mentioned, the ability to have control over what is inside your body.
Government over-control wouldn't just have to be inside the body. Suppose the government required that you wear their uniform, or to shave your head, or be tattooed? Those would be much worse violations of your rights than requiring vaccines.
There is plenty of room for debate about whether vaccine mandates are appropriate. But people aren't automatically believers in "government control over your body, permanently" - how shameful! - just for supporting the kind of vaccine mandates we have had for the last century, all the while gaining in our rights for bodily autonomy.
A.M.: Those would be bad too, but I don’t see why they would be worse …
Autonomy over your own body shouldn’t be a right we have to defend, but here we are…defending it.
That doesn't seem like a problem. That's what the courts are for. Biden was trying to end the pandemic, some thought this was too much, oh well. At least he is doing things legally, within the system, especially now that the lines are so thin.
The point is, the world is not divided into vaccine freedom fighters, and people who believe in Orwellian body control. Ordinary vaccine mandates have been very effective at preventing horrible disease. Supporting them does not indicate that people "truly believe that the government has control over your body and always has, and that’s the way things should stay." It's actually just a very small difference of opinion.
A.M.: Every governmental overstep is done legally… from the small to the big. Hitler did things legally…so did Stalin and Mussolini…working within the legal system when you’re the head of the legal system isn’t really something to celebrate as an accomplishment.
I am not saying people are divided into such groups, I am saying the government should not be able to have control over your body and make medical decisions for you.
Every law controls our bodies. What else is law controlling? Where you can go and what you can do. How is that not your body?
Yes, laws working is something to celebrate. And seriously, if you see Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini in Biden, and his sincere desire for people to be less ill, you are looking in exactly the wrong direction.
We are lucky to live in a place and time that lets women vote. If you think you will have more of anything by weakening the government, you are incorrect. There has never been any kind of freedom without strong government. We take all this for granted at our peril.
A.M.: A strong government does not require its citizens to relinquish medical control over their bodies.
We’re not just lucky to have it this good so we shouldn’t expect the freedom to make our own medical choices.
That's the debate. It's a reasonable debate to have. More importantly, Biden did the right thing and backed down. Yet you see this as the road to Hitler and Stalin?
Are you aware that there is a real, and much more serious threat of authoritarianism in this country? This is the opposite of that.
Do you know what law is? What will you do when the dam breaks?
A.M.: Which dam is going to break?
The one where the president gives a shit about "laws." Brandon may be the last president who does.
While you are comparing his actions to Hitler, his political opponents are actively staging a coup. Who will protect your right to make a private decision with your doctor when they take power?
A.M.: Why would this be the last president that cares about laws?
The coup-stagers don't. That is what a coup is. How will you get rule of law back after them?
A.M.: How do you actively stage a coup by preparing for an upcoming election?
By weakening the dams that held together the last one.
A.M.: I kind of don’t know where you’re going with this… but whatever happens next election, I’m still in the camp of believing America has fair elections and none of the previous elections were unfair.
Delegitimizing a fair election is a serious authoritarian threat. Accepting a reversal by the court and changing course is the opposite of that.
A.M.: I really don’t think you know where I stand politically.
I would say exactly the same to anyone.
L: Then this: Trump told a crowd in Conroe, TX, that the prosecutors in his court cases are evil, vicious racists, and his supporters should protest in every city if the prosecutors "do anything illegal." Said he would pardon those convicted from January 6.
A.M.: He told people to protest if the government did something illegal…just like the hippies did…
I’m not going to vilify that kind of language because history has proven, we’ve needed it on more than one occasion.
Don't object to false accusations, because that would be the end of true accusations? No.
A.M.: If he’s lying, prove him wrong. That’s easy to do in court and I have no doubt the prosecution can get the job done if they charge him.
That would not deter the base. They believe lies. Then what?
A.M.: It doesn’t matter. Shoot them then if they try taking the capital again. That’s an actual crime to stop.
It does matter what the base believes, if millions of Americans no longer believe in rule of law. What protection of your rights will you have then?
That is why delegitimization is the danger. When the dam breaks, you will not be able to shoot your way out of it.
A.M.: It’s not millions of Americans, it’s like 8 thousand.
( that would be willing to do something like a Coup. And that’s a generous estimate)
Millions of Americans think the election was stolen, or support those who say it was. That campaign is the threat to rule of law, not the few thousand dopes who managed to get January 6 off.
A.M.: No. The threat to the rule of law is by the idiots that would try to thwart it.
That is "Stop the Steal" from top to bottom.
A.M.: The people who just believe a conspiracy theory are as important as the people who believe aliens built puma punku…
So, more than 40% of Americans, not important? That's 3/4 of the Republican party, and most of their leaders - enough to win elections. Are you okay with delusional conspiracy theorists in charge?
A.M.: Let me rephrase. As human beings, they are very important.
As far as being a worry when it comes to government takedown, no. Not concerned at all. If they win a legitimate election ( which I believe we have ) then they won.
Yes, but you know they are delusional conspiracy theorists who do not care about rule of law. Who will protect your rights, such as the right to make reproductive decisions privately with your doctor?
A.M.:I know that’s what you think of them.
That is not what I think of them.
You called them "people who believe in a conspiracy theory."
A.M.:I’m not sure what kind of answer you’re even expecting when you ask who will protect my rights…? Are you insinuating only Democrats protect people’s rights, are you saying something about voting for Medical protections, or are you asking if my rights will stay protected if Trump gets elected again?
Women only have rights if those in charge respect rule of law. "Stop the Stealers," by definition, do not.
A.M.:Ok, so correct me if I’m wrong here with my interpretation of what you’re trying to say… Our rights are only going to be upheld if one political party wins the next election , because if the other party is legally elected, they will legally change the laws to take away our rights?
Yes, Republicans are trying change the laws to take away your right to make reproductive decisions, but that is not my point.
Brandon respected rule of law. He accepted a reversal by the courts and withdrew his mandate.
His political opponents believe debunked lies and try to delegitimize and subvert fair elections. They are a greater threat to your rights.
A.M.: Trump's over reaching antics were shut down by our courts and legal system. I’m not going to fear for our legal system if it continues to have every law followed.
Don't worry about these thieves because they got caught red-handed? Do you expect them to go legit when they are in charge?
A.M.: Which thieves?
No one stole any elections, and no one is going to steal the next one…
They tried, remember?
A.M.: They are working within the law.
"Every governmental overstep is done legally… from the small to the big. Hitler did things legally…so did Stalin and Mussolini…working within the legal system when you’re the head of the legal system isn’t really something to celebrate as an accomplishment."
A.M.: "Subverting fair elections?" Do you mean, redistricting?
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/january-6-insurrection-trump-coup-2024-election/620843/
“The democratic emergency is already here,” Richard L. Hasen, a professor of law and political science at UC Irvine, told me in late October. Hasen prides himself on a judicious temperament. Only a year ago he was cautioning me against hyperbole. Now he speaks matter-of-factly about the death of our body politic. “We face a serious risk that American democracy as we know it will come to an end in 2024,” he said, “but urgent action is not happening.”
For more than a year now, with tacit and explicit support from their party’s national leaders, state Republican operatives have been building an apparatus of election theft. Elected officials in Arizona, Texas, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and other states have studied Donald Trump’s crusade to overturn the 2020 election. They have noted the points of failure and have taken concrete steps to avoid failure next time. Some of them have rewritten statutes to seize partisan control of decisions about which ballots to count and which to discard, which results to certify and which to reject. They are driving out or stripping power from election officials who refused to go along with the plot last November, aiming to replace them with exponents of the Big Lie. They are fine-tuning a legal argument that purports to allow state legislators to override the choice of the voters.
A.M.: I was just saying that just because something is legal doesn't mean it isn't unethical...
"Stop the Steal" is incredibly unethical. The party that supports it is incredibly unethical. Plus, 40 million Americans think it's true, and you know it isn't, but dismiss their delusions as "unimportant." You are unconcerned about the liars and cheats and inciters of violence who do not value rule of law and are trying to subvert American democracy.
This is the authoritarian threat to the U.S. Not Biden.
A.M.: Lol, I'm not worried about it. The stop the steal people had their day in court and were proven wrong.
No, the leader of Stop the Steal is still at large, has faced no accountability, and is still doing it, which you are ignoring. His party is now changing who counts the votes, which you are also ignoring.
"Some of them have rewritten statutes to seize partisan control of decisions about which ballots to count and which to discard, which results to certify and which to reject. They are driving out or stripping power from election officials who refused to go along with the plot last November, aiming to replace them with exponents of the Big Lie. They are fine-tuning a legal argument that purports to allow state legislators to override the choice of the voters."
A.M.: ...and it was shown that the election was not stolen.
Shown to who? Democrats? Most Republicans still say it was, and their leaders will not disabuse them, so they are acting from that wrong, misguided premise. Which you are ignoring.
A.M.: The once who incited violence are receiving their prison sentences right about now.
Hurray America.
Stop the Steal was more than just Jan 6. It was the defeated loser candidate who refused to concede and is still conning his followers. It was calls to pressure Secs of State to find votes, it was the attempts to seize voting machines, it was the demands that Mike Pence "OVERTURN the election." It was the lawyers who tried to find legal rationales to stop the count, the people who sent false slates of elector documents, the electors who tried to "retract" their votes. It was the all but a handful of Republicans in Congress who voted not to convict. It was and is the millions of supporters who embrace this, who have removed all doubts from their minds. That is what it means to be authoritarian movement, an ongoing frontal assault on democracy which you are somehow ignoring.
While you lol and cheer and pretend it doesn't exist, this party is already trying to legally remove women's rights to make reproductive decisions you claim to value. If you actually cared at all about rights and bodily autonomy and rule of law you would be concerned about this movement.
1-22-22 1:22 • Real Danger
L: This happened: A guy in a Philly suburb shot and killed a thief who was driving away in his car. The dying man lost control of the car and hit a schoolbus full of special needs kids.
ArkieMom: Don’t try to steal someone’s car then. Or anything that they would panic to lose…
Should be common knowledge, that’ll get you shot at.
So just forget courts then?
ArkieMom: Enough with this mindframe that you will have people victimizing you and you just have to get over it! It’s just a fact that you don’t steal things from people because you never know what they’re going through. You never know if that car is the only way they can get their kid to cancer treatment.
You never know what the thief is going through, if stealing is the only way he can get his kid to cancer treatment. Are you sure you are qualified to be his executioner?
Rule of law has been a mark of civilization since Roman times, and societies that take the law into their own hands are the worst places in the world to live. Do you really want social norms enforced by a Taliban?
Do you want a society with rule by force or rule of law?
ArkieMom: Both.
There’s no fear of law if fear of force isn’t a consideration. Name a country that hasn’t gained stability by fearsome rule of law at some point…
No, in the U.S. people are innocent until proven guilty, and the state is supposed to have the monopoly on force and dispatch it after due process. Times when that system failed were lawless, like the "Old West." Virtually every society strives for the former and not the latter. Why don't you?
ArkieMom: Shouldn't that be what anyone stealing a car expects?
Not in a civilized society. With "shoot first, question later" it's too easy to shoot the wrong person. That is why courts were invented, to make sure that justice is doled out deliberately, and fairly, and not in a panic over shiny things. Justice by law is not perfect, but it was developed for a reason, and is used in all advanced democracies because it is BETTER for social order than the law of the jungle.
ArkieMom: Lol we don’t deal with any of that in my town because here, every home has a small arsenal, and we like showing off our aim with shooting contests every once in a while…
You deal with it constantly, your state hit an all-time high for violent crime last year. It ranks among the top five most violent states in the country. Deaths by gun are common, especially for kids. And that's good how?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/01/13/most-dangerous-states-in-america-violent-crime-murder-rate/40968963/
ArkieMom: Oh boy, a news article written by a guy in New York! I can finally read about what my life is like!
Sorry, but no… we don’t deal with that at all. Little Rock does, it’s dangerous as all hell there… but being 4 hours away, it doesn’t impact us at all where I live.
Yet you are the most frightened person I know.
ArkieMom: Bummer for me, huh?
Unimaginably so, yes.
I have been seriously robbed more than once. There is no way my life would now be better if I had shot and killed the thieves. The importance of the things I lost disappeared with time, I couldn't care less now.
I'm glad I called the police and let them handle it, like people do in civilized countries. I don't have to live with the memory of taking a human life and watching him bleed out in front of me, and then having to clean his entrails out of the cracks between the car seats. That is no way to live.
Big bummer for this country if your small-town, shooting-game fears come to rule the day.
ArkieMom: You just proved my point! And maybe you’re right thinking fear has to do with it because good God. You have been continuously robbed.
Maybe that would happen less if the criminals assumed the woman they’re about to victimize is armed?
No, when more people are armed, what skyrockets are suicides, crimes of passion, domestic homicides, accidents, and school shootings, far outweighing any crime deterrent. No, I would not be better off today having murdered one or more people than losing a meaningless purse or laptop. And no, it's not better to live in fear, ever-poised to kill people over yer stuff. You are in siege mentality every day even if nothing ever happens, afraid of the unlikely and ignoring the real danger.
Most importantly, shoot-to-kill is not how good societies work. In more advanced countries there are fewer guns and way less crime and people don't live in constant fear. That is what we should be trying - progress. Cheering on vigilante death to car thieves is going backwards.
ArkieMom: I don’t know… your way innocent people are getting robbed, multiple times, over and over again…
My way, I’ve never been robbed…
I might be sticking with the thought that if criminals knew more women were armed, they wouldn’t be trying to victimize them as much.
You would just be wrong. There is no evidence that it works that way. More guns means more crime, not less.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/
ArkieMom: No evidence besides our real life experiences, right?
Your real life experience is anecdotal, as you would know if you understood evidence. If you consider people other than yourself, you can see that guns are not lowering crime anywhere in any measurable way, and shoot-to-kill is not how peace is maintained in safe societies. It's called checking.
ArkieMom: So you believe people should ignore the reality they see as emic participants in their own culture and put more beliefs into the numbers that Edic researchers present to them as a better grasp of how their lives are spent?
How you spend your life is not the issue. If you want to know what would be good policies for the society, you have to look and see what actually works for society.
You are saying the guy who shot the car thief is just doing what everyone should be doing, and that women in general would be safer if they were more armed. Everywhere, really? Based on what, your personal experience in one small town? Have you thought at all about what really works for making a good, safe society?
ArkieMom: I believe this is one of the reasons that voting matters and it should indeed be separated by many different levels including by state and district.
What works for one might never work for another, but one cohesive nationwide society isn’t possible.
Then why are you cheering on the vigilante who shot the car thief? Why recommend more guns, more shootings? Do you really think those are good ideas, or are you just having fun?
ArkieMom: I’m not exactly cheering him on, I am saying that it should be expected that if you try to steal people’s belongings from their home, they might shoot at you…
I do think that if more women carried guns, less men would attempt to victimize them.
Yes I know you *think* that, but have you checked? Looked to be sure that is actually how it works?
Because if you look, you will see that when women have guns in the home, it is many times more likely that they will themselves be murdered by an intimate partner, or someone in the house will use the weapon in a suicide attempt, than they will ever use it to stop a crime (which is rare). Such a policy would result in more death and harm for women; it's not a good policy.
And have you really thought about what it would mean to live in a vigilante society, where norms are expected to be enforced by personal violence instead of rule of law? Do good guys get the upper hand in those societies? No, they are dominated by drug cartels and Talibans. It's not safe to walk the streets and vengeful feuding is common.
There aren't any good, safe societies, with low crime and a high quality of life, who enforce property with shoot-to-kill. It just doesn't happen. It's not a good policy. Life in this country would not be better if more people killed over stuff. Other countries really do have less crime, because they have fewer guns and more shared prosperity. That is good policy.
ArkieMom: So you think women should keep guns out of the house out of fear that their husbands might someday kill them?
Not usually, but I think all women should understand that guns in the house make it eight times more likely that he will die by suicide, and
thirty-eight times as likely that she will. Also four times as likely that her child will die from a gun accident.
Handgun ownership associated with much higher suicide risk
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-ownership-associated-with-much-higher-suicide-risk.html
The American Academy of Pediatrics advises that the safest home for a child is one without guns
https://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/at-home/Pages/Handguns-in-the-Home.aspx
Women don't have to be afraid to be realistic about risk. Guns make people "feel" safer but actually create more violent death. Normalizing shoot-to-kill vigilantism (to protect cars!?) would only make the real problem so much worse.
These users thanked the author for the post (total 2):
WellPress, Momto2boys
ArkieMom: So if I feel confident that my husband isn’t going to kill himself or me, and my guns are locked up and my teenagers have had more training than 75% of the adults that live in the country… and I get half the meat we eat throughout the year by way of the guns…
Can I feel ok about having them then?
Because it's really all about you, isn't it?
The question is, why do you feel okay about murdering human beings over stuff? Not only do you feel okay about it, you think everyone should be doing it, every person should be armed and ready to shoot fleeing thieves on busy streets. It should be "common knowledge," every thief should "expect" to be gunned down without a trial. That comeuppance, that false sense of security, is worth more to you than the lives of other human beings, not to mention the actual danger to men, women and children of arming more households. Your instant gratification means more to you than rule of law.
Do you ever think at all about anyone besides yourself?
ArkieMom: Do you prefer people to see statistics and not question whether or not the findings ring true for their lives?
You cannot even see the bloodbath in your own state, like it has nothing to do with this discussion just because it all happens (supposedly) outside a 20 mile radius of your house.
Fact is, guns do not reduce crime and DO increase the rate of violent death, regardless of what "rings true for your life".
ArkieMom: Should we believe statistics to show realities without biases?
Statistically women are more likely to be murdered by a male lover than a female lover, by astronomical odds, and since the most often found method of murder in those cases is strangulation, why do we even let grown men into our homes anymore? Could there be a reality that those statistics didn’t show us as well?
No, the reality is that the vast majority of women in the U.S. who are murdered by their partner (55-65% annually) are killed with firearms. "Hands, fists or feet" account for less than 6%.
ArkieMom: Because it should be common knowledge that you can’t victimize people with a feeling of safety. That isn’t the type of area I want to live in and that isn’t my idea of being more safe.
Your idea of safety is immoral and illegal in every civilized country, including the United States, for a reason. It doesn't work.
L: A human life is a human life, and it is still more valuable than a car.
ArkieMom: Depends who’s life, right?
And that's for you to decide, in a split second, while you are "panicking"?
ArkieMom: If you have a child with a trach who needs to be able to get to the hospital within 20 minutes of an event and the thief takes your ability to get her there making you wait up to 35-40 min to get her there by way of calling 911… you might just pick your daughter over the thief. Theives need to understand that people have issues they are dealing with.
Yeah, why don't you make up an imaginary scenario where the thief is a person too.
ArkieMom: That’s not an imaginary scenario. That’s the reality that a friend of mine lives with. She has to be able to get her daughter to the hospital within 20 minutes, at all times.
Killing a guy would not get her to the hospital in 20 minutes.
The part you are making up is a world with two types of people, good people who have problems, and thieves who victimize them. Can you imagine a scenario where the person who stole is a sick man, dying of kidney disease? A story where he has four sons, two of them small? Because that is not an imaginary scenario either.
That man is dead now. Your blithe suggestion that I should have killed him, that my life, or his son's lives, would be any better if I had, is nonsense. People who make mistakes are people with families and medical problems too.
ArkieMom: I wonder… what is your solution when it comes to lowering crime? Because everything you’ve said indicates that you deal with much more crime, but are accepting of it… if you’re going to suggest we all live like you do, you would need to also have some suggestions on how to at least cut down on the amount of crime you yourself have to deal with because some people aren’t at peace with being robbed all the time…
First of all, your paranoid depiction is false. I have lived a long, exciting life, traveling the world and having adventures. I've met people from every walk of life, been in places high and low, lived in some of the world's most beautiful cities. In all these years, with all the crazy ups and downs, I have almost never been the victim of a crime, lost nothing more to theft than a purse and a laptop and a few hundred dollars. Once was in 1996 - I ran with a rougher crowd in those days - and then once over twenty years later in 2020. I had a kid and raised him to adulthood in the meantime, never worrying about crime.
That is not being robbed "all the time," and there is no way having those minor, meaningless incidents turned into shootings would have made them better for my life. As my husband - a former Army Ranger - says, "Killing people isn't as fun as you think it is."
Secondly, I mentioned how countries with low crime are doing it - strong social support, more equality, and fewer guns.
Have you heard about Finland's low-security, rehabilitation-based "open" prisons? They have very low crime, and the lowest recidivism rate in the world. When people come to them, they get help, and then they get better. It's really quite simple. Cheaper, too.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/open-minded-finland-offers-successful-alternative-to-heavy-handed-retribution-1.964775
ArkieMom: Yes, it is for me to decide in a split second…
Well you could be wrong. You could kill some teen who was just going for a joyride, or happened to be too close when you panicked. That is exactly why people are not supposed to take the law into their own hands.
ArkieMom: Sure… and on the flipside of that coin, criminals should know people might shoot at them if they’re victimizing them.
Sure? Sure, you might kill someone who isn't even stealing, but it's worth it?? Just no.
ArkieMom: Ok. You’re the one who brought up being “seriously robbed.” I was saying that since I haven’t, I’m not seeing the connection in how you’re living safer.
The connection I hoped you would make is that killing people over property is not better for you. Not only is it immoral, and illegal, your life would not be safer, or richer or happier, if you shot a guy who drove away in your car instead of calling the police. He might just hit a schoolbus with children on board. You certainly won't make it to the hospital in 20 minutes, and you could be arrested and stand trial for murder. And you will have to give up the car anyway, unless you want your family to drive the Deathmobile. Who cares about the criminals? There is nothing to gain in this for you.
Since you have never lost anything, perhaps you just don't realize how meaningless things are, compared with taking lives. I have more experience, so I am telling you - things can be replaced. Lives can't.
ArkieMom: Well when our society runs itself like Finland, we won’t need to bother with guns anymore…
We are what we do. Normalizing vigilantism is running as fast as possible in the opposite direction.
Read more in the Archives.