WoodScientist @ WoodScientist @lemmy.world

Posts

5

Comments

836

Joined

11 mo. ago

Children are different than adults. Adults are perfectly capable of altering their behavior. Do you think it was a coincidence that the sexual revolution just happened to occur immediately after the introduction of effective contraception?

People fundamentally view voting through different lenses. Most people view voting as simply a lesser of two evils choice. Some however view voting as more of a personal endorsement. And they will choose to simply not vote for either candidate, or any candidate at all, rather than voting for any candidate they consider to be irredeemable.

You're not going to shame or convince people out of this. Any shaming based on the relative positions of the two candidates is pointless. Realize what you are going up against. You are going up against some of the most fundamental ethical frameworks human beings have for looking at the world. You are going up against thousands of years of human ethical reasoning.

When you start talking about how Kamala would have been objectively better for the Palestinians, you are arguing based on utilitarian ethics, the maximum good for the maximum number. You are saying, "yes, I know Kamala will abet a slow genocide, but I think Trump would abet a fast genocide. Therefore, Trump is better." When someone chooses to vote for neither Kamala nor Trump, they are voting based on a respect for persons ethical framework.

From a certain perspective, simply getting involved and endorsing anyone with the views on Palestine that either Trump or Harris have impugns you morally. This is literally the entire reason the Trolley Problem was created. One of the core perspectives from the beginning of that was that flipping the lever at all is morally wrong. It is wrong to kill someone even to save someone else.

Again, you can shout from the rooftops about how good Kamala or Trump would be for Palestine til you are blue in the face, but ultimately not everyone thinks on utilitarian grounds. And it wouldn't be such a classic discussion in philosophy if utilitarianism was the universally agreed on best moral framework. Utilitarianism's Achilles heel has always been that it can be used to excuse some pretty horrible things. Hell, even genocide itself is usually justified on utilitarian grounds.

I do not find it all surprising that many would vote for Democrats downballot and then simply not vote for anyone for president. It makes perfect sense from ethical perspectives that people have been debating since before ancient Athens. Shaming people based on utilitarian arguments is counterproductive for people who view their vote as an endorsement, not as simply a choice of which candidate is better than the other.

And I can't say they're wrong. I voted for Kamala. If she had won, she likely wouldn't have changed anything in terms of Biden's Middle East policy. And you know what? I would have had to go to sleep each night knowing that I helped put her in the seat that she was currently using to abet a genocide. Yes, I would know in some part of my mind that Trump would have been worse. But that would be cold comfort. I can absolutely see why millions of people would decide, "I refuse to accept responsibility for either of you. A pox on both your houses. YOU, not me, are morally responsible for any of your sins, but I refuse to get involved. Do what you want, but I'm not voting for either of you. I hope you all burn in Hell."

By definition, any woman choosing not to have sex due to state-imposed pregnancy risk is not a 'femcel.'

I disagree. The modern sexual revolution was only possible due to modern contraception and access to abortion. Did pre-maritial flings happen in the past? Of course. But casual sex was nothing like it is now. It was treated as the rare shameful exception. It was not the norm for people to openly date and publicly announce their sexual relationships for years prior to marriage. (Viewing from a Western perspective of course.)

So if you start taking away abortion and contraception? Why wouldn't you expect sexual norms to return to their earlier state? Pregnancy is incredibly disruptive, dangerous, and expensive.

In Trump's America, sex means pregnancy, and pregnancy means childbirth. In Trump's America, a straight women does not have sex unless she is prepared to be a mother, and her partner is prepared to be a father.

Will flings still happen? Sure. I expect we'll also see a commiserate rise in shotgun marriages.

I agree that 4B, as an organized movement, likely won't have much direct impact. But the general attack on contraceptives and reproductive healthcare absolutely will see a rollback of the sexual attitudes that have developed in the post-1960s world. Sex just has a lot more consequences to it now than it used to. We're going back to a world where you really can't afford to have sex with someone unless you're prepared to marry them and raise children together. Casual hookups on Tinder are not a practical thing in Trump's America.

Sorry guys, you voted for this.

It's not punishment; it's risk control. You don't get to have post-sexual liberation values with pre-sexual liberation healthcare.

We live in a culture where premarital sex, at least outside of conservative religious communities, is tolerated and even encouraged. Yet this is a recent thing. Up until the mid-twentieth century, it was extremely shameful for a woman to have sex before marriage. It would be as shameful and socially fraught as, IDK, a kid coming out as trans to their parents today.

You, I am assuming, were born sometime well after the 1960s. You were born in the post women's liberation world. So it is easy to forget that the world you are used to living in is actually a historical anomaly. The idea of it being normal and acceptable for women to have sex before marriage? That is a historical oddity in Western culture.

This social structure is only possible BECAUSE of contraceptives and abortion. And radical conservatives just came in to power that are doing everything they can to restrict these things. These radical conservatives believe sex before marriage is wrong, and they seek to restrict any access to abortion or contraception.

If these things are restricted, what choice do women have but to return to pre-women's liberation sexual norms? Are you going to start a relationship with a woman and just happily agree to be abstinent, or have zero PIV sex, while conservatives retain power? Or, are you going to pressure her into trying something riskier, like the pull-out method? Are both of you capable of holding to your agreement not to be intimate, even when both really want it, even when you're both drunk?

The simple truth is that in this environment, the government is trying to take away every option available to women to prevent or terminate pregnancy. The government is thus making sex itself incredibly risky for women. If you ask the government, they will tell you, "pregnancy or abstinence, the choice is yours."

What choice do women have but to choose abstinence?

Sorry guys. You wanted Victorian access to abortion and contraception? You wanted Victorian views on masculinity and femininity? Well, with that comes Victorian female frigidity and sexual propriety. In the future you want, casual sex before marriage isn't a thing. Better hope you roll the dice on the sexual compatibility with your spouse, as you certainly aren't getting any before marriage. And even then, only when you're actively trying to have kids.

Sex is for reproduction, not pleasure. If you have a problem with that, you're a sexual deviant. This is the world men voted for; this is the world they'll get. You want it? Better put a ring on it.

The idea isn't for women who are already in relationships with partners who support women's rights. The idea is more, for single women, to refuse to start any relationship at all right now. Which honestly, in an era where basic women's healthcare is under attack, maybe starting a relationship right now isn't the best idea. Will your women's rights-supporting boyfriend agree to become abstinent when the birth control you're using is taken off the market due to conservatives? Or will they want to move to the pull-out method or just accept the risk of being pregnant?

If you're a single woman, honestly, right now, maybe staying single through these next four years isn't a bad idea. It has nothing to do with the actions or beliefs of a potential partner, and everything with the fact that being a woman in any straight sexual relationship when conservatives are ascendant simply has a lot of unavoidable risks with it. The religious crazies in power believe that the only veto a woman deserves over being pregnant is the choice to have sex or not. And they seek to take away any way for women to prevent getting pregnant besides not having sex. These Christian nationalists, who were just elected, believe that the only choice women have should be pregnancy risk or abstinence.

You need to have a reality check here. The United States federal government, and the majority of state governments, will be telling every woman of reproductive age, "be abstinent or risk pregnancy. Any other tool to prevent pregnancy is morally wrong."

The government is literally trying to coerce women not to have sex before marriage. The government is literally trying to coerce women not to have sex before they're ready to become a mothers. The people soon to be in charge of the government literally believe that the only just use of sex is pregnancy. And they rule accordingly.

In what universe would you expect this to not result in a complete collapse of pre-marital sexual opportunities for straight men? It's not about punishing men. It's not that you do or do not have the right views or beliefs, or that you are a good or bad person. It's simply that for women, in this world that is being created, having sex before marriage simply isn't safe.

Sexual liberation was possible only due to the availability of effective contraception, birth control, and abortion. If you turn the contraceptive landscape back a century, sexual norms will have to return there as well. You are NOT going to have a world where there's no access to contraceptives where women are still perfectly happy being in sexual relationships before marriage.

Men, I hope you're ready to put a ring on it. Otherwise, you ain't gettin' any. Sorry, you wanted this world; you voted for it.

Revving up your engines for fun in a residential area should be a criminal capital offense.

FTFY

The 35% of the country did vote. If you choose not to vote for any candidate, you are voting, "both these options are indistinguishable to me, I'm good with either." Not voting is still voting. You're just endorsing whatever the people who do vote decide. You're basically saying, "I consider this race irrelevant and don't care about the outcome." That is what you are voting for if you don't vote.

Now there's another shower thought.

What if one day airplanes just like...stopped working...

He should be issuing broad federal pardons for any of the political targets Trump is threatening. Hell, he should issue broad pardons for all journalists. Anyone who has past found themselves on Trump's enemies list should get a full pardon now.

I don't know. I voted for Kamala, but I think Trump might actually be better long-term for the Palestinians than Kamala.

Yes, Trump would happily watch as Israel bulldozed and annexed the entirety of Gaza and the West Bank. But Israel's ability to do that isn't contingent on US military aid. What really prevents that is broader global public opinion. If Israel tries a full and rapid ethnic cleansing, it will be completely embargoed by every nation in Europe.

There is a reason Israel has been doing a slow-mo "genocide by zoning code" in the West Bank for years. They know they can't get away with overt genocide, not without facing mass trade embargoes.

The truth is, I really don't know if things can realistically get bad enough in Palestine for the Kamala/Trump distinction to be any different. Even in the case of an overt genocide, Kamala would simply withdraw some offensive aid. Trump would keep that aid flowing, but in either case, if Israel decided to do a full overt genocide of the Palestinians, neither a Trump nor Harris administration would meaningfully intervene.

The only long-term hope for any improvement for US policy on Israel is if Democrat leaders listen to their base and stop supporting them. Kamala was going to be fully pro-Israel. And with Kamala as an incumbent, no anti-Zionist candidate would have been able to run in 2028. Now with Kamala out of the picture, and with her seeming loss due to her and Biden's addiction to fellating Israel, there is room politically for anti-genocide voices to actually have a chance at a major party's nomination.

I would say the chances of an anti-genocide president being in office in 2029 are about 10-20%. With a Harris win, that chance would be 0%.

OTOH, I can see it from the other perspective.

I voted for Kamala, but I also recognize that NOT VOTING for Kamala is probably the fastest way to get any change in US Israel policy.

If Kamala won, nothing was going to change in Gaza. The current slow genocide would continue unabated with full US financial support.

Trump won. There is now a chance that the genocide will accelerate. However, there are strong reasons to believe this will not be the case. Israel has always had to balance its genocidal territorial ambitions with global public opinion. Trump will not stop Netanyahu from bulldozing the West Bank, but the threat of embargo from every nation in Europe might. Israel can only go far without risking its existentially necessary trade links. As nice as US aid is to have, this broader international trade is Israel's real life-blood.

So while there is a chance of acceleration, the chance is not particularly large. In reality, the ultimate outcome of Trump and Harris administrations is likely identical in terms of Gaza.

On the other hand, a Kamala loss does present the one narrow window for possible change on US Israeli policy. Kamala chose Israel over winning the election. She gave up her presidency for Netanyahu. She betrayed her own base, and she towed the Israeli line, and what did it get her? She was still portrayed as the enemy of Israel and lost anyway.

That lesson will be remembered by future Democratic candidates. And that lesson is that cowing to Israel does not guarantee victory. And that is really the only realistic path forward we have right now to any change in US Israeli policy. It's going to require that Democrats get their heads out of their asses and realize that Israel is not such a winning issue anymore. THAT is what is required for real change. And hopefully, with Kamala's loss, at least some progress can be made on Democrat's chronic case of Israel fellatio.

I dunno. I find the word "decadence" ridiculous. It's flexible to the point of uselessness. People refer to the "decadence" of the Romans to mean everything from their extreme wealth gap to the decline of citizens soldiers. Hell, half the time people use "decadence" just as a way of disguising that they're simply blaming the fall of Rome in the existence of gay people.

That's a clear bad-faith interpretation of what I posted. Try improving your reading comprehension skills.

And look where that type of thinking has got us. Democrats don't run on any meaningful bold policy positions, as there's always some needling centrist saying why this or that will never be politically viable.

Trump doesn't run this way. Deporting 20 million people has all sorts of practical, legal, fiscal, and political issues with it. No rational or sane professional political consultant would say that it's a winning strategy. Yet, time and time again, Trump proves that things that all the political consultants and experts would be political suicide, are in fact anything but.

Democrats give up before the fight even begins. They accept Republican framing and Republican ideas on what is politically possible. They run as Republican-lite, and they lose again and again because of this.

And their centrist wing managed to completely kneecap it. The same centrist wing that ran Kamala's campaign.

How has US fossil fuel production been cut back AT ALL from any Biden or Harris policy?

Yes, I know you can blame it on Manchin. The problem is that there's always a Manchin. The Democrats take turns being the sacrificial lamb, and they can always find some conservative Dem to kneecap any serious Democratic proposal.

Voters don't give two shits about what your party introduces. Parties introduce all sorts of policies they have zero intention of passing for easy political points all the time.

This study from 2014 really explains this election for me.

For the bottom 90% of the US population, democracy fundamentally does not exist. The actions of legislators reflect the opinions of the wealthiest 10% of the population.

"Democracy," for 90% of the population, is a complete sham. Since 2016, Democrats SHOULD have been taking a hard left turn towards progressive populism. They should have been pursuing policies that are actually popular among the common people, even if those are unpopular among their wealthy donors. But while they ran on the idea of democracy, Democrats have done NOTHING to make their party actually reflect the needs of regular people. They should have been offering a bold vision to help the American people. But the DNC decided that the whims of donors was more important, and they lost as a result.

Why would you expect people to care for a democracy that means nothing to them?

I voted for Harris, but I also realize that this "They took the pistol out of the person’s hand that was pointed at them and replaced it with a bazooka" is a seriously poor description of Israel and the Gaza conflict in regards to Harris and Trump.

Harris didn't really offer anything substantially better for Palestine than Trump did. Yes, Trump personally wouldn't mind it if Israel just completely bulldozed the entire West Bank and Gaza tomorrow and annexed the whole thing. Harris wouldn't support that. But the real barrier to that kind of full-on ethnic cleansing is not US military support. Even with full US backing, Israel can't do that kind of full-on ethnic cleansing without becoming subject to complete trade embargoes by every country in Europe.

Israel has been physically capable of completely annexing the West Bank and Gaza for decades. They've taken the slow approach to ethnic cleansing - slowly taking territory via zoning building permits - precisely because they need to balance their territorial ambitions with their need for trade with other nations. This is what ultimately restrains them from their worst possible crimes.

Neither Trump nor Kamala would have used US military aid to rein in Israel. Neither would use US military forces to prevent an all-out genocide attempt by Israel. Trump wouldn't oppose an overt Israeli genocide against the Palestinians. But if Israel gets to that point, then they're not going to be thinking about US military aid at that point.

As a practical matter, Trump vs Kamala is a wash for the Palestinians.

• Completely adopting the right-wing framing on immigration. Ended up running in favor of the most right-wing and damaging immigration bill. (She adopted it because Trump rejected the bill because he wanted to run on it.)
• Signing on to continue Trump's stupid border wall.
• Adopting a policy on Gaza that was as favorable to Israel as any official policy of the Republicans.
• Not challenging state-level laws against trans people, largely taking a state's right position on the matter.
• Seeking out and running on endorsements from Dick Cheney and other prominent Republicans.
• Embracing fracking when fracking isn't even supported by a majority of Pennsylvanians.
• Completely abandoning medicare for all, not even making the public option a major part of her campaign.

That is NOT the status quo. You're talking about someone promising to make utterly massive changes to US foreign and domestic policy. People are hurting for change, and if they can't find that change on the left, they'll find it on the right.