low_delta

Heather Cox Richardson

December 30, 2020 (Wednesday)
And so, we are at the end of a year that has brought a presidential impeachment trial, a deadly pandemic that has killed more than 338,000 of us, a huge social movement for racial justice, a presidential election, and a president who has refused to accept the results of that election and is now trying to split his own political party.

It’s been quite a year.

But I had a chance to talk with history podcaster Bob Crawford of the Avett Brothers yesterday, and he asked a more interesting question. He pointed out that we are now twenty years into this century, and asked what I thought were the key changes of those twenty years. I chewed on this question for awhile and also asked readers what they thought. Pulling everything together, here is where I’ve come out.

( very long )

One thing I've noticed about the difference between conservatives and liberals, is that conservatives tend to have a tighter circle of "us".

There's a fence around "us" that keeps "them" out. The smaller the diameter of the fence, or the less permeative is is, the more conservative the person tends to me. I know people who will do anything for their families, or their chosen families - their tribes. But outside that group? Fuck 'em. The kind of person who will be eulogized for being selfless, but who never tipped the wait staff.

And there's another kind of person who cares about everyone to some extent. Sure, the closer the subject is, the more they are likely to care, but there's a whole continuum of caring. These people are the ones who can see shades of grey.

I saw this article today:
https://www.journaloftheplagueyear.ink/blog/trump-s-hidden-nation

It mostly compares and contrasts Trump and Hitler, but I thought this passage was apropos to the subject:

In the Third Reich the voice of human conscience did not say it is wrong to kill, it said it is wrong not to kill, as Hannah Arendt so precisely observes. This was made possible by a shift in the language, displayed in its purest form in Mein Kampf, which contains no “you,” only an “I,” and a “we,” which is what makes it possible to turn “they” into “it.” In “you” was decency. In “it” was evil. But it was “we” who carried it out.

So Hitler was building fences, and making it clear which side "we" should be on. To be clear, he was defining who "we" should and shouldn't be.

.

I commented this in response to someone who posted an opinion article calling liberals terrorists. Like, "here's why they're tearing down monuments. They want to strike fear in our hearts. They're terrorists."

Remember when the divide between liberal and conservative was about tax rates for the rich, or whether government institutions should be privatized?

How did the opinions of the conservatives shift to "liberals are terrorists", or "it's OK for the police to beat up people who are marching with signs because they're liberals and they deserve it", or "I'd love to shoot me some G-damned liberals"?

It's because of bullshit like this. It's because nobody cares to learn how the other side feels. Nobody wants to learn what their real intentions are. They live in an echo chamber. All they want to hear is the opinions of people who kind of agree with them. And then those opinions are reflected back, and amplified, and pretty soon it's "death to all who disagree!"

So stop it!

Also, if you ever hear anyone say "liberals are doing this because..." you can just start ignoring them. The thought processes of liberals are alien to conservatives, so any time a conservative tells you what a liberal is thinking, you know they're wrong.

* * * * * * * * * *


Also, I saw some religious nuts arguing. Some relative of Cyn's said something that was pro-violence, and someone got on his case about that not being what Jesus wanted. Predictably, he remained firm on the need to protect himself. None of this turn the other cheek. Oh, nad he tried to write off Native American genocide as "I can't have an opinion on that because it was a different time." But some other guy got on espousing all kinds of wacko right-wing religious views. All Old Testament stuff, like smiting the enemies. And how God gave us government.

for my notes

In response to a meme where black/Mexican/etc. pride is bad, but white pride is somehow not...

What are you saying you're proud of when you're saying your proud of being Mexican? Mexican culture? That's cool. What are you saying when you're proud of being an Irish American? Your Irish culture? That's cool. German? French? That's cool.

But what are you saying when you're proud of being white? There is no white culture. So when you say you're proud of being white, you're saying you're proud of not being black or brown.

When someone says he's proud of his Native American culture, he's not specifically saying he's glad he's not white.

Also, when you say you're proud of being white, you associate yourself with the white pride movement, which is specifically and vocally racist.

* * * * * *

You think this is the only time peaceful citizens have been killed? This may be the most blatant one, but it happens all the time, and I'm getting sick of it.

There have been way too many people killed by cops for no good reason. The list is long.

I've seen video after video of police attacking peaceful protesters in the last week. It's got to stop! Bad cops are way more common than you'd like to think.

* * * * * *

The violence perpetrated by the police sickens me. How do you attack peaceful protestors when they're protesting police violence? The message is clear. "We're going to fuck you up and there's nothing you can do about it."

They're not concerned with stopping violence. They encourage it. Think about it. It's job security. The worse the crime looks, the bigger the budget.

On the other hand, there's the perception that the protestors are the rioters. That protestors are criminals. That anybody protesting against the police is wrong, because that's unAmerican.

[Interesting that no conservatives liked this statement?]

* * * * * * *

Here's something I haven't had time to write a response to yet:

Erie County Comptroller Stefan Mychajliw released a statement Saturday morning in response to the incident and in support of Buffalo Police:

“In times like these, we need level headed, strong leaders who believe in the rule of law. I stand strong behind these Buffalo Police officers and all members of law enforcement. Cops are under attack from agitating, extremist radicals that crave anarchy and chaos. Enough is enough. It’s time for us to take back our neighborhoods. It’s time to take back our way of life and our great nation. Law abiding taxpayers are afraid. Our children are scared. This lawlessness must end. We can no longer sit back and let rioters attack police and destroy businesses. This must end. Now. I refuse to backdown. I refuse to let the shining city on a hill that brought my immigrant parents across an ocean come under attack from within. Weak, cowardly politicians that stay quiet when radicals pursue political prosecutions of the police trying to protect us should be ashamed and need to get out of the way. To all police officers: we stand with you. We have your back.”

Stefan Mychajliw
Erie County Comptroller

A libertarian on my Facebook list shared a video that had a big headline that read [Jordan] "Peterson completely destroys feminist narrative." I was originally planning on ignoring it, but the "destroys" thing drives me crazy. So I watched it. His position was mostly listing all the areas where men don't have an advantage in society, as if this makes everything even. But then he also talks about how the free market is the driver that causes some professions to be dominated by men. "Plumbing is a field that is dominated by men. Yet there are no roving bands of tyrannical plumbers causing people to disproportionately choose male plumbers over female ones."

So I commented:

Holy shit, he went there! He said that our society, with its patriarchal structure, is based on competence, and then goes on to give all kinds of examples of male-dominated jobs! So the caption said he destroys the feminist narrative, while he actually shows us the very basis of sexism.

Some guy replied:
"You sound like that BBC reporter he also destroyed." And he posted another video of this guy.

I didn't want to watch it, especially because it was 30 minutes long, but I gave it over ten minutes, here and there. It was a sort of debate, where the woman interviewer would say things like "so what you're saying is..." And he would reply "no, what I'm saying is..." Or "on average, a woman gets paid nine percent less than a man doing the same job. That's not fair is it?" "It depends on why it's happening. I can give you an example..." My main takeaway from the video was that he thinks there are a lot of reasons why women don't do as well in society, and most of them are not prejudice.

The other thing about this video, was that the woman kept bringing up points against him, and he kept shooting them down. And she seemed to be getting angry while he remained absolutely calm. She appeared to be losing the debate. But the thing is, he wouldn't give her anything to fight against. Every single point she brought up, it was like, "no, that's not the issue." And he'd talk about all the issues, and it was like "no, I'm not taking a side, that's just the way things are."

Anyway, back to my debate. He said the guy destroyed a reporter. I replied,

You happen to agree with his brand of BS, so when you hear him say it, of course he "destroys" the opposition.
I'm giving you the definition of sexism, and explaining how his argument exemplifies it, and you still don't get it.

Now the guy starts to actually think. Not well, but at least he's posting sentences.

No actually you aren’t and you completely misunderstood what he was saying because all
Your blinders are predispositions to hear that gender is a social construct and that there are no real differences in males and females. Unfortunately that is untrue and his points went over your head.

What he is essentially saying is that nature makes men take more risks and that the distribution of extreme success and extreme failure has a longer tail on both sides causing all the negatives and also that a very select few in the far end outperform all people.

YOU interpret that as saying men in general are superior but he is not saying that at all. He is saying men have greater failures as well which you completely ignore.

I replied

Your blinders are predispositions to hear that gender is a social construct and that there are no real differences in males and females. Your guess of my perception is wrong. I believe there are differences and that women's contributions aren't appreciated in a male-dominated society because of those differences. In the video you posted, he talks about that sort of thing, but seems to accept it as a result of society. "That's just the way it is."

He talks about empowering women to present themselves in aspects that men can understand and appreciate, so the women can advance. Again, that's evidence of systemic sexism. And one solution he worked on was not educating men to appreciate the differences, but to "help" the women to reduce those difference.

No response. I won't assume I got through to him on any level, but who knows. Maybe he didn't reply because he didn't understand what I meant.

I was referring to a part where he explained that one of the factors in women not earning as much as men, is that some people are too agreeable. Agreeable people earn less. And women are more likely to be agreeable than men. And then he said he helped a group that was working with women to teach them to be more aggressive and less agreeable in the workplace.

I've been getting into it with people on Facebook lately. But I don't get involved in discussions about opinions, I only start when people post really stupid shit.

Today someone posted an article from a right-wing site (it had a Breitbart banner across the top of the page). It was about this crap where the law enforcement had standing orders not to get involved with any issue at the school because it would make the school look bad. I don't recall everything else that was in the article, but there were vague mentions of Hillary Clinton.

I replied:
It's really scary that people believe this stuff. It's all so preposterous. IN what kind of a world would this happen? Can you picture it happening in your state? No. But you can picture in happening in Florida, because Florida is a crazy place, right? Well, no, Florida isn't that crazy!

This is first order conspiracy theory, like the moon landing, chemtrails and 911.

The people that spread this kind of misinformation are the same kind of people that believe Sandy Hook was a false flag operation. The people who write these lies are intentionally sowing mistrust in all that we read and hear. When enough of the people can't trust most of of what they hear, these people can do whatever they want and take over. Because there will so much distrust of any media, that no one will be able to disprove anything.


Another guy posted a meme that compared liberals to conservatives in the worst terms. Like "If a conservative is a nonbeliever, he doesn't go to church. A liberal nonbeliever wants any mention of God and Jesus silenced."

I replied:
Why do you post made-up hateful shit like this? You're just insulting people because of stereotypes. Come to think of it, that's a very conservative thing to do.

I'm so sick of people who don't understand liberals and therefore hate them, talking about what they think those liberals are thinking.

He said: Okay I am done talking politics. No can have a civil conversation without being attacked. I posted this showing the extremes. Kevin, I did not mean any thing personal. If I offend you unfriend me.

I replied: I don't have a problem discussing politics. I don't mind if it gets a little heated sometimes. But you're not taking a position on an issue. You're taking a position against liberals. Politics is fine. Hatred and insults is not. Go back to politics.


And this one... Liberals are saying that the American Flag is offensive to Muslims. Share if you don't give a damn.

Me: What in the fuck are you talking about? The shit you post just gets stupider and stupider. You sound like a liberal troll who's posting stupid shit, just to get people riled up.

Him: Looks like its working. :) Look we obviously have different political viewpoints. Lets agree to stay on our own side of the playground. Sound good?

Me: You mean unfriend you? Look, I don't have a problem with my conservative friends who state their viewpoints. We often have lively discussions, and we remain friends. But the shit you post is just stupid. It's not based on anything factual. You post a lot of angry, hateful stuff, much of which is untrue. More than anyone else I know on Fb. That's not constructive.

The only conservative I ever unfriended here for their views was someone who espoused genocide.

I could say something, like "conservative affirm the right to burn crosses in black people's yards," and I'm starting to approach the stupidity of what you just posted about the flag. The only difference is that there are actually some conservatives who think this is OK.

Him: posted a source for what he was talking about.

Me: Ah. Got it. Taunting people who one deems not American enough by virtue of their colored skin or refugee status should be protected. Someone in charge says "knock it off, asshole." The kid shows puppy dog eyes and says "What's wrong with a little patriotism?" And they can't wear the red white and blue. Sounds to me like they defiled it themselves.

But what you posted still doesn't have any facts. It makes it sound like Muslims are offended by the flag. Muslims aren't offended by display of the flag. They're offended by the behavior of the people showing it off. And it makes it sound like "liberals" are OK with taking down the flag. But they're not. They're just the only ones with the balls to stand up to these kids and make them knock off the assholery. Of course I'm making a generalization about the racism of conservatives. Many of those school officials may have been conservatives concerned about violence.

And what about the article you posted. The simple fact that it touts a "hidden agenda" makes me want to disbelieve everything it said. But I went along with it for the sake of discussion.

The left doesn't hate the flag. The left doesn't have an anti-America agenda. There is no one-world agenda. Unless you believe in the Illuminati.

There is one thing that was said in the article that I agree with. "The hysteria over flags is part of a deep-seated spirit of divisiveness." But it's always conservatives that make a big deal of the flag. You're un-American if you don't wave it hard enough. You don't deserve to be elected if you don't have a flag pin on your lapel when you campaign. You're not a patriot if you don't have a flag pole in your yard. You don't deserve to be an American if you don't salute it when it goes by in a parade. Hysteria. I mean, it's great to teach respect for the flag, but they hatred and vitriol spewed at the people who don't follow the rules to your satisfaction is not befitting an American.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-redefines-the-enemy-and-15-years-of-counterterrorism-policy/2017/01/28/ff1093cc-e58f-11e6-ba11-63c4b4fb5a63_story.html

"Some Iraqi lawmakers proposed banning U.S. troops and civilians from entering Iraq — an action, if followed through, that could lead the authorities in Baghdad to turn to Russia and seek more support from Iran.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted that the ban would be “recorded in history as a great gift to extremists and their supporters.”

Brandon Victor Dixon — the actor who played Aaron Burr — stepped forth and cut through the applause.

“You know, we have a guest in the audience this evening,” he said to audience laughter. “And Vice President-elect Pence, I see you walking out, but I hope you will hear us just a few more moments. There’s nothing to boo here, ladies and gentlemen. There’s nothing to boo here. We’re all here sharing a story of love. We have a message for you, sir. We hope that you will hear us out.”

As he pulled a small piece of paper from his pocket, Dixon encouraged people to record and share what he was about to say “because this message needs to be spread far and wide.”

“Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you, and we truly thank you for joining us here at ‘Hamilton: An American Musical.’ We really do,” Dixon said to further applause. “We, sir, we are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. But we truly hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and work on behalf of all of us. All of us. Again, we truly thank you truly for seeing this show, this wonderful American story told by a diverse group of men and women of different colors, creeds and orientations.”

“The Theater must always be a safe and special place,” Trump tweeted as a follow-up. “The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!”

Borrowed from Mikhail...

This was written and published in the Washington Post before Wisconsin's legislature jumped on the unnecessary ultrasound bandwagon.
______________________________________________________
A proposal for moms-to-be (like abortion rules, it’s for their own good)
By R. Alta Charo, May 24, 2013

R. Alta Charo is a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin law and medical schools.

Having an abortion is a momentous decision. And a growing number of states are expressing concern for women who are contemplating that choice.

Last month, Virginia — obviously in the interest of making abortion as safe as possible — required abortion clinics to be regulated like hospitals , even though that might put most of the state’s clinics out of business. Meanwhile, Kansas — to ensure that women have full information — enhanced its abortion-counseling requirements to include warnings about even disproven risks of abortion, such as breast cancer. Elsewhere, protections have come in the form of extended waiting periods, mandatory interviews seeking evidence of coercion and laws requiring women to have an ultrasound, and, in some cases, view or hear a description of the imagery, before they can have an abortion.
But while states give such solicitous attention to women planning to have an abortion, they ignore the needs of women planning to give birth. Bringing a child into the world is also a life-changing decision. Too many women have to make that choice without similar protections. It is time to demand equality and tell our legislatures to enact the Defense of Motherhood Act.

DOMA would extend existing protections, with small modifications as necessary.

In the interest of safety, DOMA would insist that all prenatal care be provided by licensed physicians (not nurses or midwives) in medical offices fully equipped to handle obstetric emergencies — even if that means having to wait longer for appointments, pay more or drive for hours.

To ensure that the decision to go through with a pregnancy is fully considered, there would be a 72-hour waiting period between the time a pregnant woman first sees a doctor and the time she can get prenatal care.

Physicians would have to inform pregnant women about the risks of childbirth and motherhood. They would have to note that childbirth, compared with abortion, is roughly 14 times more likely to result in maternal death and is more often associated with depression and other forms of mental illness. They would also have to emphasize that working women in the United States can expect to see their wages drop 9 to 16 percent for each child and that having a child makes it significantly less likely that an unmarried woman will ever marry.

To ensure that women are not being coerced by partners, family members or clergy into bearing a child, DOMA would require that all women be interviewed about the circumstances of conception and their motives for continuing with pregnancy. Did a husband sabotage birth control? Was a woman unable to afford contraception because her employer refused to comply with the Affordable Care Act?

And, finally, pregnant women would be required to view a two-hour video featuring a colicky newborn, a toddler having a tantrum and a sulking teenager.

In addition to the provisions above, DOMA would remember the special needs of pregnant teenagers. Since a child’s decision to have a baby represents a significant turning point in a young life, lawmakers across the country have required that parents give consent or be notified before a pregnant teen can receive an abortion.

It is hard to understand why similar protections have not been afforded to girls who plan to give birth. After all, only about half of teen moms finish high school, and they may well rely on their parents to raise and support their babies. Therefore, under DOMA, prenatal care for a minor would not be available without at least one parent signing a statement acknowledging the limited life prospects and economic opportunities for teen mothers.

All this and more has long been guaranteed to their sisters who are ending their pregnancies in abortion. It’s a matter of simple fairness that we treat mothers-to-be just as lovingly.