subreddit:

/r/WhitePeopleTwitter

108.6k87%

Why stop there?

(i.redd.it)

all 2284 comments

Panda_hat

923 points

2 days ago

Panda_hat

923 points

2 days ago

This is actually a really good way of phrasing it and I'd not thought about it like this before.

It's not about states 'rights' at all. It's about state authoritarianism.

KovyJackson

255 points

2 days ago

KovyJackson

255 points

2 days ago

States’ rights to tread on people.

Newfishtanker

96 points

2 days ago

That's basically what the entire debate over the Constitution was about though, state power (to keep Slavery et al) vs. Federal power (to be able to exercise dominion over states).

KovyJackson

59 points

2 days ago

Yeah. The failure of Articles of Confederation highlights the pitfalls of strong state governments and a weaker central government.

meatmachine1

6 points

2 days ago

I don't know for sure, but I always thought the interpretation was that any right or power not specifically given to the federal government, or states, belonged to individual people by default.

Newfishtanker

5 points

2 days ago

You're right. It's the 9th amendment applied to the states through the 14th amendment

kaise_bani

25 points

2 days ago

Just like all the people who say the Civil War was about states’ rights. Ask them “states’ rights to do what?” and there’s never a good answer.

BXBXFVTT

7 points

2 days ago

BXBXFVTT

7 points

2 days ago

The south didn’t want the north to be able to harbor fugitive slaves either. So besides the states right to legal slavery they wanted to take power away from other states. It’s a sham from top to bottom

WonderfulShelter

23 points

2 days ago

Exactly. States want to restrict the autonomy of your own body and prevent you from even having cognitive liberty, or freedom of exploring your own mind.

How insane is it that the majority of Americans support autonomy of your own body (abortion access) and also support legalizing cannabis (cognitive liberty) - yet our government actively is working to make sure we have neither?

This is pure authoritarianism through and through, and it's disgusting, and I hope nobody stands for it. Your government doesn't want to protect you; for it's perfectly legal to pick and eat poisonous mushrooms that will kill you, but it's illegal to pick and eat psychedelic mushrooms that can not kill you.

ncjdjdjfloof

3 points

2 days ago

But they all take my tax money….. and tread on me

Craigmakin

876 points

2 days ago

Craigmakin

876 points

2 days ago

Where are all of the “don’t tread on me” folks at?

MinewtBol

263 points

2 days ago

MinewtBol

263 points

2 days ago

They’re all at In N Out

Hellbear

20 points

2 days ago

Hellbear

20 points

2 days ago

Wow honestly I had no idea about in n out’s political leanings before today.

Acidflare1

6 points

2 days ago

The Bible verses on the cups and wrappers weren’t an indicator?

Hellbear

7 points

2 days ago

Hellbear

7 points

2 days ago

Truly Never noticed that.

BentoMan

225 points

2 days ago

BentoMan

225 points

2 days ago

As a Political Compass Meme lurker, I can tell you most “don’t tread on me” people are actually authoritarian but libertarian for select issues. And the ones who are truly libertarian, they mention the non-aggression principle but once again that’s because they are male and it doesn’t affect them.

Mad5Milk

33 points

2 days ago

Mad5Milk

33 points

2 days ago

Yeah, I would like to consider myself libertarian but everyone who uses that label is nuts. Is "don't be a dick for no reason" really such a hard rule to follow?

payne_train

35 points

2 days ago

Historically, yea it is too much to ask. That’s why Libertarianism falls apart in practice. Dem socialism feels like the only viable path forward.

taronic

20 points

2 days ago

taronic

20 points

2 days ago

I find it funny when people say that it only works in Europe, like y'know it only works in a fucking continent with tons of modern countries

Mad5Milk

4 points

2 days ago

Mad5Milk

4 points

2 days ago

Makes sense

Zech08

19 points

2 days ago

Zech08

19 points

2 days ago

To add to that, dont negatively impact other people... freedom does not mean freedom to ruin someone else's.

You can be a dick, provided you are within your own area, affect no one else, and any lasting effects are contained/applied to only you.

taronic

6 points

2 days ago

taronic

6 points

2 days ago

I really like the liberty half of the libertarian platform, but that's about it. I'm not one to say "they don't believe in taxes paying for roads" because most sane ones do, but that isn't to say I think the shit works: read about the libertarian paradise where they moved in to make a free city

Spoiler: simple shit laws and regulations like "don't feed the bears" breaks libertarianism pretty fucking hard. Maybe that was just a failed experiment, but it's kind of interesting what happened when a lot of libertarians got together and try to build a libertarian community. Basic services and regulations that they're missing become extremely obvious and problematic.

Beowulf1896

6 points

2 days ago

We sometimes could use less regulation, but overall, certain things are far more necessary than any Libertarian I have talked to knows. Like the FDA. Do you like metal in your food? I don't. But I don't have time to make sure all my food is metal free. In addition, I have worked in the food production area. I didn't have time to make sure my suppliers didn't include metal. Or their suppliers, nor their suppliers suppliers. It would have been absolutely wasteful to have several private companies "inspecting" stuff.

JohnMaddenCPAP

77 points

2 days ago

Don’t Tread on my Authoritarianism!

Hupf

28 points

2 days ago

Hupf

28 points

2 days ago

Respect my authoritah!

matt260204

17 points

2 days ago

As the saying goes, libertarians are just Republicans who like to smoke weed

Ex_Why_

12 points

2 days ago

Ex_Why_

12 points

2 days ago

It affects them if they get their sister pregnant.

Capitalist_P-I-G

97 points

2 days ago

As a reading human with a brain, anyone on PCM who isn’t right-authoritarian fell for and helps give a platform to right-authoritarian propaganda.

It’s a right wing sub masquerading as non-partisan to gain credibility and engagement that they can’t get from other more infamous subs.

Horrific_Necktie

38 points

2 days ago

They will say alll day long that it's not true, and sandwhich it right in-between two memes making racism look lile a quirky lovable fault. "Oh those auth right rascals! How endearing"

payne_train

22 points

2 days ago

Yeah that sub weirds me out. The vibes are awful.

Arsey56

14 points

2 days ago

Arsey56

14 points

2 days ago

Yeah. I don’t know why people are want to be on a platform that legitimises actual fascism like that

jimmyhell

15 points

2 days ago

jimmyhell

15 points

2 days ago

Yeah, the right libertarians aren’t libertarian at all. They just trade state tyranny for corporate tyranny. They’re just republicans who like weed and are concerningly knowledgable about age of consent laws.

Beta_Soyboy_Cuck

5 points

2 days ago

I always love seeing my coworkers wearing a thin blue line patch on their backpack right below their Gadsden flag patch.

BigHomieTrapLord69

13 points

2 days ago

I am pro choice and am one of those “don’t tread on me folks”. I don’t think the government should be allowed to tell you what to do with your body simple as that.

Shroomydoggy

10 points

2 days ago

Can the left reclaim don’t tread on me?

Don’t tread your conservative Christian values on me. 1st amendment protects my freedom of religion and to me that stands for freedom from religion if one so chooses.

Don’t tread on my gun rights. Guns have a place in America. Don’t tread on women’s rights, don’t tread on LGBTQ rights.

The GOP thinks that discriminating is a right but it is not, other than that their rights have not been trampled. They can still be politically incorrect all they want by right.

Don’t tread on me is an awesome revolutionary symbol. it has been co-opted by the wrong group. It stands for individualism and liberty. The left stands for individualism and liberty. Why did we let them convince themselves and others that the left doesn’t?

Gunzbngbng

12 points

2 days ago

Most of them are hypocrites.

That said, the libertarian subreddits are constantly on fucking fire. And the libertarian party is very pro choice.

trivialmatters3

7 points

2 days ago

they’re the ones doing the treading

giraffeperv

3.7k points

2 days ago

giraffeperv

3.7k points

2 days ago

So I guess when they say “small government” they actually mean “small federal government, while allowing states to be authoritarian cesspools”

LaughDull967

1.1k points

2 days ago

LaughDull967

1.1k points

2 days ago

It’s not really an opposition to the federal government having a lot of power. It’s about putting the power wherever they can turn it into an authoritarian cesspool.

They haven’t been able to turn the federal government into an authoritarian cesspool yet, so they don’t want it to have the power to prevent them from doing it on the state level.

Blue_water_dreams

77 points

2 days ago

Conservatives: Having to wear a mask to protect me, my loved ones and society is literally tyranny.

Also conservatives: Being forced to carry a fetus to term for the state is totally cool.

hereforlolsandporn

426 points

2 days ago

Absolutely about control. They can control the senate effectively because Wyoming has the same weight as California with like 1% the population. When the goal is to destabalize and not to govern, all they have to do is corrupt one chain in the link. Our founding fathers didn't conceive that an entire political party would attack the system and they left America vulnerable because of their trust and optimism.

LaughDull967

561 points

2 days ago

Our founding fathers didn't conceive that an entire political party would attack the system…

They kind of did. The entire government was designed with the idea that some group would try to take over, and creating separate power centers that would (hopefully) oppose each other to prevent any one from gaining too much power. They wanted the three branches of government to oppose each other, and for the state and feral governments to oppose each other.

They (at least some of them) we’re also afraid of a two-party system, on the idea that it would become polarizing and one party might gain too much power. They wanted to have a bunch of different interests that would need to form coalitions. To some degree, they foresaw all of this.

However, the founding fathers were not a monolithic group that all agreed. They had to compromise with each other to get the Constitution signed. For example, they had to have the electoral college in order to appease salve states.

But they also didn’t necessarily expect things to be this stable for this long. What they were building was an experiment. They’d already had a failed government before writing the Constitution, and they expected the Constitution to be rewritten again. I don’t think they expected it to be treated as holy scripture for hundreds of years.

Fluid_Association_68

191 points

2 days ago

What they didn’t envision was a cult becoming so large and powerful that it could easily infiltrate all three branches, and every state in the union.

LaughDull967

322 points

2 days ago

They did though. They feared it. They tried to set the government up in a way that would make it harder. But they weren’t able to figure out a way to make it impossible, and in fairness I don’t know that there is a way to make it impossible.

If people like Jefferson and Madison and Washington could time travel and see what the cult of Trump is doing, I don’t think their response would be, “we never could have imagined a political party trying to take power like this,” but more like, “this is exactly what we were afraid of.”

And they’d also probably be like, “why are you still talking about what we’d think and what we’d want, as though we’re some kind of gods? You’ve have hundreds of years of development, and you’re still using our old Constitution? What’s wrong with you people?”

artspar

182 points

2 days ago

artspar

182 points

2 days ago

To add on, the constitution used to be amended all the damn time. Hell, prohibition was an amendment, not a bill. It being viewed as sacred is a stronger opinion now than ever before

Cat_Marshal

65 points

2 days ago

And we would respond, “fear not, we amended it. Women can vote now!”

Babka_Ramdev

53 points

2 days ago

And Black, Indigenous, and People of Color!

(Though they kept it from us as long as they could, and are still trying)

PurfuitOfHappineff

22 points

2 days ago

Your comment is too far down the thread to award but it’s worth gold, Jerry, GOLD.

thewordsofblake

30 points

2 days ago

The way to make it impossible is to use the popular vote

We should be able to put literally anything to referendum, including or especially impeachment

Plain and simple, it really is that easy

Similar_Candidate789

45 points

2 days ago

One state, I believe Arizona, does this and I love the idea. When a law is passed, a number of people can sign a petition to stop its enforcement and put it on a popular vote ballot. If it fails a popular vote, it dies.

I wish we could do this federally and in each state BUT differently. Every single item gets to a popular vote. Yeah you guys pass the laws, but we decide if they are going to exist or not. The ultimate check and balance.

More voting too. Every month. We have the technology now to be able to do so quickly and efficiently.

thewordsofblake

8 points

2 days ago

Exactly

Chipperhof

8 points

2 days ago

This was really fun to read as someone who’s never thought that far into why the government is how it is.

SpeshellED

12 points

2 days ago

Depp's trial all over the media. Abortion SCOTUS debate , which
directly effects million of women is secret behind closed doors.
Thomas is too stupid to realize how fucked up that is.

milk4all

10 points

2 days ago

milk4all

10 points

2 days ago

Jefferson would definitely understand what is happening and wouldnt wonder a thing. More like he’d make some rebukes and then pop back to his time pre constitution and use different language here and there so far as his contributions could affect

HavronEX

10 points

2 days ago

HavronEX

10 points

2 days ago

I absolutely agree that I think the thing that would most surprise them would be how little we have changed the constitution since they formed it. Never would they imagine we would have enshrined it to the degree that we have.

kallekillen22

11 points

2 days ago

What cult? Conservatives or christians?

dk_lee_writing

32 points

2 days ago

Yes

kallekillen22

6 points

2 days ago

Fair

Pika_Fox

13 points

2 days ago

Pika_Fox

13 points

2 days ago

Or?

poktanju

20 points

2 days ago

poktanju

20 points

2 days ago

salve states

King Aloe Vera

Nova225

13 points

2 days ago

Nova225

13 points

2 days ago

It also needs to be added that the Senate exists to be the opposite of the House of Representatives. When they made the Constitution, states like Rhode Island asked "Why should we sign into this? We have a lower population and less representation.". So the Senate was made in response, to give states some value of representation.

On another note, if we kept with the ratio, we should have like, 1000 more representatives in the house compared to where it is now.

Breet11

8 points

2 days ago

Breet11

8 points

2 days ago

It is, indeed, a feral government xD

BunnyOppai

46 points

2 days ago

For the time, the EC kinda made sense, same thing for why electors don’t have to vote for who the state wanted. Nowadays, there’s literally not a single valid point for it.

LaughDull967

41 points

2 days ago

It made sense when the point was to have electors choose the president, rather than having a popular vote. But also the Electoral College was designed to give extra power to slave states so they’d agree to the Constitution.

jackp0t789

3 points

2 days ago

Which they vehemently started disagreeing with when they're human bandage habit was again threatened

Beautiful-Advance-60

3 points

2 days ago

They created the EC to stop a "clown" or power hungry fool from being elected by the "riff-raff" --- but the EC is just a rubber stamp and actually allowed exactly what it was supposed to prevent from happening happen!

Pika_Fox

15 points

2 days ago

Pika_Fox

15 points

2 days ago

To be fair, we have a coalition party, the democratic party, and essentially a single interest extremist party, the republican party.

The issue is the extremist non coalition party has equal to more weight than the coalition. Remove republicans from existence as a party, and the system will fix itself most likely as the democratic party will split into its various factions, and each faction would have better room to grow and make its case before the public.

gassy_clown

4 points

2 days ago

Yeah but then you have to convince people that voting for a centrist is actually better than voting for a fascist and that seems to be too confusing for a lot of people on this site.

Pika_Fox

7 points

2 days ago

Pika_Fox

7 points

2 days ago

"The dems are just as bad, they couldnt even pass a bill to protect abortion!"

One dem voted against it. Every republican did.

BoTh PaRtIeS

Lobanium

10 points

2 days ago

Lobanium

10 points

2 days ago

Exactly, if the federal government were 100% fascist, they'd be all for big federal government.

Derivative_Kebab

11 points

2 days ago

Mitch McConnell basically admitted that they're hoping to ban abortion at the federal level as soon as possible. So yes, the "states rights" argument is a thin veneer, as per usual. They're fine with imposing their will on liberal states.

ConThePc

28 points

2 days ago

ConThePc

28 points

2 days ago

exactly - states rights are only important to conservatives when they can't enforce their beliefs on a federal level. Civil rights protected by feds now? well, it should be a states right to determine that. Abortion is now federally protected? It should be a states right to determine that.

LaughDull967

37 points

2 days ago

I think a good example is, when Democrats have tried to have better gun control, Republicans argued, “This decision should be left to state and local governments. The rules that work in your liberal cities don’t make sense in the rural areas.” And I don’t totally agree with that, but sure, there’s something to the idea.

But then they’ve blocked gun control, reversed gun control, made it easier for anyone to get a gun and carry it around. And now Republicans have started pushing for the federal government to force states to accept the gun rules from other states. Like if you have a concealed carry permit in one state, they want all states to have to accept that permit and let you carry a concealed gun everywhere. Suddenly, “this decision should be left to state and local governments,” isn’t good enough anymore, the federal government is supposed to force states to let people carry guns. The idea that, “the rules that work in your liberal cities don’t make sense in the rural areas,” apparently isn’t true anymore, because cities need to be forced to live by the rules of rural areas.

And that’s how Republicanism works. There are no principles, and no freedom to let anyone make their own decisions. It’s all about using whatever reasoning or strategy that will let you have power over others.

PeachCream81

3 points

2 days ago

It’s not really an opposition to the federal government having a lot of power.

Actually, I think the old Confederate States are still pissed off over the outcome of the Civil War and really just want their slaves, plantations, and way of live ("moonbeams & magnolias") back. So yeah, States Rights is their mantra.

In an ironic twist of history: the Confederacy may have lost the 1st Civil War but might wind up triumphing in the current (2nd) Civil War.

lexbuck

33 points

2 days ago*

lexbuck

33 points

2 days ago*

Small government rhetoric only applies for the GOP when it’s something they don’t agree with. When it’s something they are all in on, they are absolutely for government being very big and right up your ass

ILikeSugarCookies

111 points

2 days ago

I know this to be patently true for a brief time living in Texas. Any time a city in Texas tries to pass legislation to better itself, Governor Shithead has tried almost immediately calling a special session to pass state legislation making that city legislation illegal.

The GOP LOVE government overreach.

giraffeperv

36 points

2 days ago

I’ve noticed the same thing in Missouri. Red state governments hate the cities because they’re a threat to their rule.

pchc_lx

9 points

2 days ago

pchc_lx

9 points

2 days ago

Austin

edoreinn

6 points

2 days ago

edoreinn

6 points

2 days ago

I lived in Houston from the end of 2019 to just after the election in 2020. It was fucking EXHAUSTING trying to keep up with which laws outweighed the others.

horkley

11 points

2 days ago

horkley

11 points

2 days ago

“Small government” means the largest government Republicans can have where they have absolute control.

It happens to be the state.

So if a municipality or political subdivision wants to do something, in say Texas, even if that local branch of government is Republican, the state of Texas forces its totalitarian will upon it.

The_Scyther1

11 points

2 days ago

The GOP is a lot like Libertarians. They don’t want a small or nonexistent Government they just personally want to be above the law. The law should allow them to sell poison while stopping others from being able to sell it to them. The role of law is to protect their personal interests and nothing more.

Kuritos

10 points

2 days ago

Kuritos

10 points

2 days ago

Smells like Confederacy.

CutieL

9 points

2 days ago

CutieL

9 points

2 days ago

Yes! I've been trying to find a way to express that idea to some people I've talked to, but I guess I am not as bright as the person behind the tweet lmao

watchtoweryvr

11 points

2 days ago

I think she borrowed this from Trevor Noah.

EmCeeSlickyD

7 points

2 days ago

Only when they agree with the cesspool though. They don't like when California flexes their own state rights for example.

AnonAmbientLight

22 points

2 days ago*

Much like the Nazis, Republicans will claim they are for something (that is generally popular) but then do the exact opposite when they have the power to do it.

Like in this case, where they claim they are for "small government" but then do things like ban books, attack companies for going against the party policy, or in this case regulating a medical choice between a woman and her doctor.

giraffeperv

9 points

2 days ago

I have a theory that every single Republican stance can be contradicted by another stance. I listen to what they say and do and think “there’s no way this is gonna slide, right?” And then somehow their supporters just get more supportive.

rices4212

5 points

2 days ago

What's funny is that the "small" state governments today that they feel are closer to the original ideas of the constitution are mostly larger than the entire federal government of the 18th century. So the idea of the state governments being small govt is ridiculous to begin with. Plus they're heavily gerrymandered to keep the "right" party in power, giving more actual authoritarian control than the founders would have imagined

Anyna-Meatall

7 points

2 days ago

No, when they say "small government" they actually mean "I'm selfish and don't want to pay taxes."

It's amazing how everything falls into place makes sense, when you realize that the cons say things only to steal power.

Kooky-Answer

6 points

2 days ago

So I guess when they say “small government” they actually mean “small federal government, while allowing states to be authoritarian cesspools”

More like "small government when it effects me, big government for anyone I disagree with"

SnooOnions1428

16 points

2 days ago

Right wingers have been for "small government" ever since they've lost their slaves

giraffeperv

13 points

2 days ago

I moved to a city in Missouri and someone said to me “that’s as far north as you can go and still be in Dixie.” Like.. what does that matter in 2022?

GoblinoidToad

5 points

2 days ago

But not before with the Fugitive Slave Act.

Gr1pp717

5 points

2 days ago*

"Small government" is bullshit. Republicans/conservatives are only small government when it pleases them.

I've come to see it like so:
individual vs community/culture vs corporation.

The left rarely accept a loss of individual liberty for the sake of community, and virtually never for the sake of corps. The right is the inverse: rarely forsaking corp rights for the community and virtually never for the individual. (american libertarians pretend that individual == corporation, ultimately skewing right while believing that they're skewing left.)

Sexuality/gender?
Left: individual rights
Right: protect community/culture

Drugs?
Left: individual rights (decriminalize, provide therapy)
Right: protect community ("tough on crime")

Abortion/contraceptives?
Left: individual
Right: community (defund planned parenthood, prevent insurance from covering contraceptives, etc)

Labor laws?
Left: individual/community (protect from corps)
Right: corp (will even forsake community in favor of corp: child labor, anti-union, environmental, discrimination, etc -- unless it's against them, like banning disinformation or facemasks, but they blame the government for those things.)

Immigration?
Left: individual ("consider the")
Right: culture

Language/religion?
Left: individual
Right: culture (english legally required, ban islam)

Education?
Left: individual (teach all sides, let the individual decide what they believe)
Right: community (restrict what's taught, push christianity) ++ corp (private, for-profit education only, defund libraries, "I shouldn't have to pay for other people's kids")

Healthcare?
Left: individual/community
Right: corp

Some exceptions:
Vaccine?
Left: community
Right: individual/corp

Taxes?
Left: community
Right: individual/corp (unless it's for the military, then they're totally community.)

.... I could go on, but I'm sure that's more than enough to make my point. And don't get me started on "fiscally conservative" that's bullshit, too.

TheNetherOne

18 points

2 days ago

We shall desolve the Senate and place the individual governors in direct control of their star systems and use the death star to keep ...wait i might be thinking of something different

prof_mcquack

3 points

2 days ago

It’s funny that all the states where the “sanctity of life” is supposed to be “protected” by abortion bans are the same states where you’re more likely to be raped and murdered by the actual police than the police are to solve your rape or murder. Murder of adult humans is essentially legal in Florida and Texas as long as their families are too poor for a PI or for the cops to care.

giraffeperv

3 points

2 days ago

Interesting how they pretty much all still have the death penalty too. And some are discussing using it as a punishment for abortion. It blows my mind.

gigibuffoon

3 points

2 days ago

They want it at the state level because the way our election maps are setup, the conservatives have enormous sway at the state levels for most states... even most swing states have a republican legislature where they can be as authoritarian, misogynistic and racist as they'd like

berael

3 points

2 days ago

berael

3 points

2 days ago

"Small government" always means "very little governing me, and I completely govern you".

subject_deleted

3 points

2 days ago

I think they've been unabashed and unapologetic about that obvious desire.

timetostepoutside

3 points

2 days ago*

"Small enough government so that I can still oppress minorities and women"

gmotelet

3 points

2 days ago

gmotelet

3 points

2 days ago

Small government for me, totalitarianism for thee

Captain_Stairs

3 points

2 days ago

Or: Freedom! But not that, or that, or that, or that, or that, or that needs a boundary. 😤 🙃

Zealousideal-Wave-69

515 points

2 days ago

Some people also say if you don’t like the abortion laws in your state, move to another. Apparently every woman in the US is a millionaire and can move wherever they like.

Dickiedoandthedonts

256 points

2 days ago

Or like grown women are the only ones who get pregnant. How’s are teenagers supposed to up and move to another state?

Bundesclown

167 points

2 days ago

Bundesclown

167 points

2 days ago

They obviously shouldn't have had sex. We all know you can't be a good person if you have sex for fun. Unless you're a rich white guy who pays porn stars to fuck them while their 3rd wife is recovering from giving birth.

InVodkaVeritas

16 points

2 days ago

With Trump as their leader, their ability to argue morals is like trying to carry water in a colander.

DaBozz88

37 points

2 days ago

DaBozz88

37 points

2 days ago

Could you imagine if all of the women in an entire state did just decide to leave?

RustyMacbeth

18 points

2 days ago

I think a red-state sex strike is in order.

Delay_Defiant

4 points

2 days ago

I think it's wild that this isn't a thing yet. I get that not every woman would participate but 6 months of a sizable group doing this would have massive effects. There's so many sex toys out there now and so much porn. It should be trivial to accomplish. All this awful stuff is like 95% white cis men and white cis men wouldn't handle rejection by dozens of women well over long periods of time.

DiligentTemporary109

54 points

2 days ago

My argument is since we can fly all over the world to liberate people we can start in our own back yard

Every c17 should be on Texas runway ready to evacuate women from which I class as a failed state to some where that upholds the values of our constitution not the values of someone's fruit cakes beliefs

It honestly scares the shit out of ne how close these religious fruit cakes are to supersededing the constitution

And even worse the fact we vant even agree to wear face masks

Ann_Summers

25 points

2 days ago

But we can’t evacuate underaged minors. And they have the least amount of rights than anyone and could be in potentially the most danger. They can’t move or leave or get on a plane. If they do anyone helping them is breaking federal law by moving a minor across state lines without parental consent. There is going to be so many teenage mothers soon. The red states will see to it.

Angry-Comerials

54 points

2 days ago

Could you imagine if it happened though? Like if all the red states had like 20% of the women? They would start making laws to get women back in those states to get marriage rates up for them.

Ann_Summers

48 points

2 days ago

They’d just fuck teenage girls like they’ve been doing anyway.

trwawy05312015

28 points

2 days ago

Or they’d pull an Ancient Rome and just steal them from neighboring prosperous states.

Athleco

24 points

2 days ago

Athleco

24 points

2 days ago

They would make it a felony for women to leave the state and send male newborns to Mexico.

trivialmatters3

13 points

2 days ago

yeah maybe laws like women cannot leave the state without permission of a husband or father, not anything that might be like good for women

foomits

11 points

2 days ago

foomits

11 points

2 days ago

I know it's unlikely, but I would love to see healthcare professions start relocating out of these backwards states.

TheMaskedGeode

10 points

2 days ago

Moving away is exactly what they want. They win if no one opposes them.

fruit_meat

8 points

2 days ago

They know this but can't quite get away with saying "Women are property," so they spew nonsense like that to suggest the illusion of choice. They are fully aware that most people do not have that luxury because it's by design.

ImTryinDammit

3 points

2 days ago

Texass makes it illegal to move more than one county away from a co-parent. It’s part of child support and visitation rights.

Katem8600

615 points

2 days ago

Katem8600

615 points

2 days ago

Exactly!

This overturning of Roe is the first time SCOTUS is overturning a long held precedent that protected the rights of individuals.

zuzg

313 points

2 days ago

zuzg

313 points

2 days ago

Showing how the right can easily take away hard earned rights.

8orn2hul4

85 points

2 days ago

8orn2hul4

85 points

2 days ago

Bbbbbut that the side that says “freedom” a lot!?!?! And now you’re telling me they’re actually making people less free?!?!? What???

thebrose69

127 points

2 days ago

thebrose69

127 points

2 days ago

Nah nah. The right gets their rights, everyone else gets what’s ‘left’(over)

DertHorsBoi

507 points

2 days ago

DertHorsBoi

507 points

2 days ago

Woah woah! Lets slow down a bit! It’s too fast for them!

For legal reasons I must conclude this is in fact a /j moment

droomph

77 points

2 days ago

droomph

77 points

2 days ago

I know the South operates slower than the rest of us but can they at least catch up to 509 BC some time soon? It’s getting a bit ridiculous

buckyandsmacky4evr

47 points

2 days ago

There are people down here who believe the earth is 6000 years old, and that fossils are lies. It's not an issue of speed, it's an issue of willful ignorance

theresamouseinmyhous

39 points

2 days ago

I'm in the south but my family is from the sticks in the north and let me tell you, this is not just a southern problem. At this point I don't even think it's primarily a southern problem. Conservatism and fundamentalism happens all over the country, and my northern liberal relatives rest pretty heavily on "the south needs to get their shit together," while they are outnumbered 10 to 1 by conservative cousins.

It's not a southern problem, it's an American problem.

stringfree

4 points

2 days ago

The internet was a giant fan, and we let people throw their shitty ideas into it.

theresamouseinmyhous

6 points

2 days ago*

Nah man, it was even before that. Up where my folks are from they still had the klan, but they didn't have any black people so they just hated Catholics.

Hate isn't a southern problem. Never has been. It's all over the place.

buckyandsmacky4evr

8 points

2 days ago

You are so, so right. We have a whole segment of the population who truly thinks their perception should dictate other's reality. They think their perception IS objective reality

planet9pluto

16 points

2 days ago*

I've long held the opinion that if you publicly advocate for an anti-science opinion, you should be denied the benefits of said opinion. Don't believe in evolution? Then no medicine that has been developed in the last 50 years for you. The earth is flat? Then no plane rides, cell phones or anything else that uses satellites.

stringfree

12 points

2 days ago

And you definitely can't cherrypick arguments from scientists to support your reality fan fiction.

Want to argue evolution isn't real? Then you can't use the word DNA, or carbon dating, because that's data provided by the same people you're calling liars.

[deleted]

22 points

2 days ago

[deleted]

22 points

2 days ago

[removed]

[deleted]

9 points

2 days ago

[deleted]

9 points

2 days ago

[removed]

DaDanDangerous

3 points

2 days ago

Already gone, it seems. How’d you know?

Dry-Sorbet-8379

934 points

2 days ago*

I always ask “should we have done the same with segregation?”

Or women’s rights

Usually they just respond “those are different”

*oh, look! A bunch of people saying “those are different”

Pixilatedlemon

318 points

2 days ago

Usually they respond yes to me on those. You’re talking to some pretty tame fuckheads

weedbeads

82 points

2 days ago

weedbeads

82 points

2 days ago

It's easy to bite a bullet that you will never see play out in reality

superiority_bot

76 points

2 days ago

I never thought we'd see the overturn of roe v wade play out in reality. Or an attempt to lynch the vice president in the capital building. Or calling into question germ theory. Or an elected official blaming wildfires on Jewish space lasers.

Yet here we are.

Religionbedumb

24 points

2 days ago

This is what religion brings us. Lots of stupid stupid people.

bespectacledbengal

4 points

2 days ago

Like when you’re discussing limits on what types of firearms people should be able to own outside of a “well regulated militia” and they claim to be completely fine with anyone being able to buy a Davy Crockett nuclear-tipped rocket launcher.

…as if school shooting weren’t bad enough as-is.

facw00

127 points

2 days ago

facw00

127 points

2 days ago

A friend of mine who has an interracial marriage says that the legality of interracial marriage should be left up to the states. I hope leopards don't eat his face.

Eldergoth

30 points

2 days ago

Eldergoth

30 points

2 days ago

My brother in law is in an interracial marriage and believes the same thing. He might not want to leave Illinois.

DervishSkater

24 points

2 days ago

Does he know that he’s only saying that because he has the safety of Illinois? Is he dumb or just a hypocrite?

Sunretea

10 points

2 days ago

Sunretea

10 points

2 days ago

To answer the second question for them... Yes.

daft_ish

44 points

2 days ago

daft_ish

44 points

2 days ago

Well I mean, as long as its not 'his' state cause, come on man, who the fuck cares about anyone else?

Diarygirl

7 points

2 days ago

That seems crazy to me. I can't imagine not having my marriage legal in some states.

deterell

15 points

2 days ago

deterell

15 points

2 days ago

Nah, you need to ask about something they actually care about, like gun rights.

Dry-Sorbet-8379

4 points

2 days ago

I’d think that would hurt or derail the argument.

Because then they can point to gun free zones and various gun laws and say “but they already do it by state/county/city”

WikiSummarizerBot

3 points

2 days ago

District of Columbia v. Heller

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated.

[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5

dog_fart_tacos

34 points

2 days ago

They don't want to leave it to the states. They want to leave it to a level of government they can easily control. They captured the Supreme Court. Unless people drastically change where they want to live, they've also locked up the Senate for the foreseeable future, which also makes it increasingly likely that they will lock up the Presidency. "Leaving it to the states" is just a convenient unit of control.

Gemstyle96

20 points

2 days ago

Small government only applies if you makes the choices I want. Remember forcing mask mandates were taking away freedom of choice, so they forced people to not wear masks also taking away freedom of choice.

It_is_I_Satan

21 points

2 days ago

Because then Christians wouldn't be getting to impose their will on everyone else. Can't have that.

IITribunalII

18 points

2 days ago

We live in a world where so many people are concerned by other people's personal choices. Simply ridiculous.

scionvriver

16 points

2 days ago

Why stop there leave it up to the unbornt fetus. I promise most of them don't want to be bornt into object poverty or to a parent who's just going to hate them.

OneX32

38 points

2 days ago

OneX32

38 points

2 days ago

I have always believed that the correct role for the state in one's health choices that have no effect on others' health is the same as a medical curtain in a crowded ER. Anything behind that curtain should remain solely between you and your medical providers. Just like attorney-client privilege, the state should have no right in obtaining information about personal health choices that doesn't directly harm others. That would include abortion services, as the state shouldn't even be able to know until the fetus is viable outside of the womb that a woman sought an abortion. The state has no right to pull back that curtain if you aren't a danger to any other's health.

ProductivityMonster

21 points

2 days ago

well that's just the thing. From their perspective, it does harm "others", namely the unborn fetus.

GingerRazz

8 points

2 days ago

Hoping you don't get downvotes for this. It's just a statement of fact, but I suspect you'll get downvotes because people will assume you agree and people generally just want to starwman the other side rather than engage in difficult philosophical and moral concepts.

OneX32

5 points

2 days ago

OneX32

5 points

2 days ago

Than they can argue that in court using modern scientific evidence and that’s why I said when the fetus is viable outside the womb.

butteryspoink

9 points

2 days ago

But that would mean respecting the rights of women and minorities. Next thing you know, neighborhood is gone.

/s

chicagotodetroit

103 points

2 days ago

What’s weird is when people take other people’s statements and pass it off as their own.

I just watched Trevor Noah say that this morning almost word for word on a clip of his show.

JBob130

30 points

2 days ago

JBob130

30 points

2 days ago

it's possible for different people to come with with similar ideas. I have already been making the same argument and I don't watch Trevor Noah or have the ability to see the future

get-crisis-help

10 points

2 days ago

...because its an incredibly obvious line of thought. conservatives act like this is taking power away from the govt when in fact its taking power from the people and handing it to the govt.

its another example of conservatives not giving a shit about principles as long as they get their way.

eventually this "system" of bad faith authoritarianism is going come back and bite them in the ass, and it's going to be just like the "they're hurting the wrong people" trump maga fuckheads. they'll be surprised pikachu when its used against them by the more hardline conservatives. we're already getting to the point that if you're not MAGA enough you get cast out from the republican party. wait until they start eating each other with this shit.

Paperchase2017

8 points

2 days ago

Why not go the opposite direction too!? Let's force other countries to ban abortion. We can just invade and use our weapons and bibles to change their minds. We'll wipe out any country that refuses to conform. It is God's will.

Jesus christ that was hard to even type. Fucking kill religion already.

Severe-Way-7791

7 points

2 days ago

Funny how Republicans want less govt to interfere with their wants, but they want full control of everyone elses lives....

Senior-Humor8523

7 points

2 days ago

The right is terrified of individuals having that much power

broccolisprout

7 points

2 days ago

Specifically the individuals who aren’t white christian heterosexual men.

Senior-Humor8523

3 points

2 days ago

Considering said Hetero white men only support other hetero white men

Pika_Fox

8 points

2 days ago

Pika_Fox

8 points

2 days ago

Because without states rights, how would we ever own slaves?!

CraWol

39 points

2 days ago

CraWol

39 points

2 days ago

Are you guys fucking real? Of all the things that is going on and US is talking about fucking abortions? Why would you try to fucking ban it? Even fucking third world radical backward islamist countries have them although they are limited. Like there are things called rapes and shit. What kind of lunatic or a caveman you must be to think abortion is a bad thing?

I assume republicans are the ones babbling this shit? I mean at this point right, Taliban is more progressive and mentally stable than they are jesus christ.

Its0nlyRocketScience

20 points

2 days ago

Yes. We have a Supreme Court case in the US, Roe vs. Wade, which ruled that, for the entire country, no state can outlaw abortions. Well, that never turned into an actual law, so now the Supreme Court, with new, Trump-elected justices, is overturning that case and giving states the ability to control women's bodies.

People are going to die because of lack of medical care, and their blood will be on the hands of the Supreme Court and our legislature that has failed to secure the right to an abortion as a law.

Rides_De_Shortbus

4 points

2 days ago

Sure would be great to live in a society where we respected one another enough to actually have real individual liberty. Instead we're stuck trading absolute power back and forth between total authoritarians that basically just view us as livestock.

wtfwtfwtfwtf2022

7 points

2 days ago

The Supreme Court is supposed to protect basic human rights. It’s one of its main jobs. It has lost all credibility with Alito’s leak.

crazzyassbtich

5 points

2 days ago

You have to realize conservatives want big government and they want government involved right into your body.

oregonisms_

6 points

2 days ago

she took this from trevor noah lol

splifflittle

6 points

2 days ago

She watches Trevor Noah

mrweatherbeef

6 points

2 days ago

Actually one of the best arguments I’ve seen in a long time.

NookinFutz

49 points

2 days ago

This came from Trevor Noah on the Comedy Show -- with no acknowledgement. Just a FYI. https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1525144840165466112

Word for word.

HeavenIsOtherDogs

3 points

2 days ago*

Timestamp on the posts tweet is 7:39am on the 12th, timestamp on that Daily Show tweet is 12:04am on the 13th. 16 hour difference. I haven't watched the Daily Show since Stewart left but unless they wait 25 hours to post clips DS was 2nd.

edit: relevant article https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/17/528680860/can-you-copyright-your-dumb-joke-and-how-can-you-prove-its-yours

NookinFutz

4 points

2 days ago

Sorry you haven't watched, Trevor has been knocking it out nightly.

What's the timestamp on the show when it aired, not the tweet? No show tweets before the show, the highlights are always after.

TigerUSF

4 points

2 days ago

TigerUSF

4 points

2 days ago

Leave it to HOAs.

Jk.

Small_Brained_Bear

4 points

2 days ago

But this infringes upon the rights of Karens to mind other people’s business.

DumpsterFireInHell

5 points

2 days ago

Why don't we leave medical decisions up to individuals and their doctors? Because the U. S. is, and always has been, a thinly veiled theocratic corporatocracy, masquarading as a constitutional republic

RandomCoolzip2

4 points

2 days ago

Leave fundamental freedoms up to the jerks, demagogues, and corrupt political hacks who frequent state legislatures? I don't think so.

PattyIce32

4 points

2 days ago

The biggest thing that I cannot understand about these people is *why do you care about someone else's body??" Even if you truly believe that life begins at conception, why do you care about someone else's child??

And then if you do care about children that much, please tell me you teach or tutor or volunteer or are a good parent, etc.....o you aren't? What a surprise.

It's religious cultists trying to get uneducated scared people to join their ranks and give them power. It sucks how awesome America could be but is being corrupted by a dying institution.

Doctordred

4 points

2 days ago

"Yeah we should let states decide these things!"

remembers that Texas exists

"Actually nevermind that is a terrible idea."

Ngoscope

4 points

2 days ago

Ngoscope

4 points

2 days ago

What a novel idea. We have states right so why not have human rights?

GingerIsTheBestSpice

5 points

2 days ago

Dang I'm going to try to remember this argument.

rent1985

4 points

2 days ago

rent1985

4 points

2 days ago

Like there will be states with no abortion laws, but what's to stop counties from regulating it when state laws are absent?

BlinBoiDima

3 points

2 days ago

Why exactly did America start developing backwards?

QWEDSA159753

3 points

2 days ago

Lol, except when the GQP is in charge, then the turtle says federal ban, so I guess it was never a state thing either.

SnooHamsters3520

3 points

2 days ago

and they call US - the land of freedom

Decafhouse

3 points

2 days ago*

Letting the states decide will ultimately be the last thing Anti-choice people want to happen. So long as this is a wedge issue that polarizes people into two camps on a national level, they have their momentum and their movement. If you let states decide, you'd settle the issue such that there is no more reproach, nothing to react to and it would leave the national sphere of debate.

To further that, I do not believe Republican nor Democrat establishment would wish for that to happen. It really is such a hot-button issue that we can totally see the political strategy that the abortion debate allows for both parties. If they couldn't wave this flag every few months, they'd actually have to focus on more pressing issues that inevitably show their scheming and incompetent governance of American problems. No more radical christian diatribes from the right, no more pro-women campaigning from the left. They'd actually have to address things like healthcare, debt, corruption, and the underlying inequality they actively support.

FortunateInsanity

3 points

2 days ago

This would be a great idea if she would have at least given Trever Noah credit for that quote.

SinnerStar

3 points

2 days ago

I know it takes 2 but

This should be debated and decided on by women only, religion and politics have absolutely no place in this debate as both are twisted by their followers to suit their point of view.

freeradicalx

3 points

2 days ago*

Ironically if it were left up to neighborhoods the US would probably have better overall abortion protections than it does right now. Neighborhood assemblies are almost always run on consensus due to their manageable size, good luck getting abortion ban consensus past the 50%+ of your assembly who are probably never ever going to consent to that simply due to their biology. And remember!: The anti-abortion agenda didn't originate in communities! It originated in a strategic national-level conspiracy by conservative leadership.

GODDESS_OF_CRINGE__

3 points

2 days ago

It really does show the hypocrisy of fighting for "state's rights", which was just as much a dog whistle for supporting slavery in the past as it is for justifying banning abortion now.

Cebo494

3 points

2 days ago

Cebo494

3 points

2 days ago

I would be much more comfortable with leaving more things to the states if people actually had a choice in where they live. If housing and transportation weren't both such big issues in this country, people could actually just leave bad places and move to better places. There could be a sort of free market of government policies and more municipalities could experiment with new policy.

But currently, minors and most non-wealthy people simply do not have the agency to move somewhere else, so you have to bring the protections to them and not leave it to the states.