[tomc1985]

I attended a rally and march on Roe v Wade last night, and it was alarming to hear just how many other issues rally leaders tossed into the ring, to a large cheering crowd. Some of these were things have a legitimate intersection with reproductive rights -- minority access to equal healthcare, or the various kinds of service ghettos that spring up minority neighborhoods, or other issues SCOTUS has indicated it wants to weigh in on -- but several had nothing to do with reproductive rights: ACAB, or reparations, for example.

And then, to make it even worse, they went on to tell the crowd that you HAVE to care about these issues if you care about Roe v Wade. And if you don't, then "get the hell out of our way". So either you agree 100% with the hivemind and their dated BLM script, or fuck you. To say nothing of the fact that the person shouting this stuff seemed to cherish just how many different labels she could attach to herself to appear more credible.

I consider myself a staunch independent and this was downright insulting. The operatives instigating all of this do not want people making rational points with their minds, they want a mental hegemony to act as a bedrock for their political war machine.

Given that and how political discussions seem to be playing out everywhere, I don't think anyone should be supporting these kinds of discussions at work. Should companies willingly allow space for crowdsourced political brainwashing?

[UkrainianJew]

In general, when somebody is advising you against discerning, untangling and questioning, chances are, you are being manipulated.

[pas]

... ironically this sugar-free watered-down self-defeating super-dumb twitter-compatible version of solidarity (dare I say intersectionality) is also the result of a loss of nuance and untangling.

it's critical to stand with others, but it's dumb to hold back good things for a minority group all groups can get what they want, and ostracizing and exiling others because they don't care enough about all the other things some cabal of the organizers of some particular movement/protest is the exact opposite of accepting others. and yes, there are issues where the tolerance of intolerance can become a serious problem, but to find those it's surprisingly not enough to apply mob justice on the spot. aaaaand yes, there are those things where even that's okay (let's say someone starts to unfurl a nazi flag)

(and excuse me for my own rudimentary dumbing down.)

[tomc1985]

If only this message was spread more widely!

[rayiner]

The irony is that if it wasn’t for intersectionality, there’s a good chance Democrats could have held their traditional ambivalent stance on immigration, and Trump wouldn’t have gotten elected and wouldn’t have gotten those Supreme Court picks. Now, pro choice Democrats are in the tough spot of being totally dependent on the most socially conservative part of their coalition (Hispanics in the southwest, Black people in the south) to win elections.

Half of Black people in Georgia oppose abortion, but 90% vote Democrat. I wonder what it’s going to do to Democratic turnout in Georgia if donors in New York and California make the 2022 and 2024 elections all about abortion.

[TMWNN]

>Now, pro choice Democrats are in the tough spot of being totally dependent on the most socially conservative part of their coalition (Hispanics in the southwest

This faction's support for Democrats is rapidly disintegrating, based on the massive shift to Trump seen in the Texas border counties in 2020. Like, 30 points' worth of movement.

[rayiner]

Notably, whether Republican Myra Flores holds onto the 85% Hispanic House district she recently won in the special election, it’s notable that the Democrat she defeated was also pro life. Vicente Gonzales, who will run against her in November, is also pro life.

[cudgy]

Isn’t her district being redrawn and possibly affecting demographics? I might have misheard.

[rayiner]

Redistricting made her district more favorable to Democrats and Democrats are expected to take back the seat next year. But the Democratic candidate, Vicente Gonzales, is also pro life: https://sbaprolife.org/representative/vicente-gonzalez

Pro-choice Democrats have painted themselves into a tough spot. After moving left on race and immigration, they lost significant support in the Midwest and Rust Belt. They assumed that pickups among Hispanics in the southwest and south would offset those losses. But Hispanics are more conservative than whites on abortion. (Polling shows that about the same percentage of both, 40%, oppose abortion: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opini.... But abortion views are strongly correlated with age, and the median Hispanic is 14 years younger than the median white. Which means that at any given age range—such as the age ranges that tend to vote—Hispanics are more conservative. Moreover, because Democrats win only a minority of the white vote, they need to win 70%+ of the Hispanic vote.)

Democrats have reframed figures like David Portnoy and Joe Rogan—folks who appeal to white working class folks in the Midwest and Rust Belt—as “right wing” and “racist, sexist, and homophobic.” But note that both strongly sided with liberals on Roe being overturned: https://www.foxnews.com/media/barstools-dave-portnoy-rips-ro.... This group is less religious than the GOP as a whole, and has long been willing to at least go along with keeping Roe even if they were personally pro life.

Democrats traded a less religious, more individualistic part of their coalition, for a more religious, more family oriented one.

[cudgy]

Yes, the days of Democrats taking for granted minority voters and lumping them as a simplistic population of left-minded voters may end soon. However, it might be too late; the Republicans may hold these new converts for a long time, especially given the younger demographic of hispanics. Many of us tend to follow the party that we start with as new voters in our early twenties.

It seems to be the Republicans game to lose, which they have proven to be far better at avoiding than the Democrats. Abortion though is one issue that Republicans have bet the ranch on in the past with disastrous results. It is a land mine for them if they go too far with it.

[labster]

I guess you haven’t been to many rallies or protests. People always show up with unrelated issues, and there’s not much you can do about it as an organizer. I helped to organize a protest asking Trump to release his taxes, and people showed up with signs to abolish ICE (immigration enforcement). I went to a rally to get out the vote, and the local congresswoman was drowned out by a woman who wanted her son freed from prison. Politicians will push whatever they think is advantageous to themselves (though the better ones will stay on topic).

Free speech is a wonderful thing, but there can be too much of a good thing. Learning when to shut up can be valuable too, one doesn’t offend people like the parent post.

[tomc1985]

You are right in that I don't do rallies. But anger at the situation led me to join this one, where I was promptly reminded why I find political types so repulsive.

[UkrainianJew]

Yep, and then you do an anti-vaccine-mandate rally in Canada, one idiot with a swastika shows up, and then media goes on for weeks how everyone opposing vaccine mandates is a Nazi.

[labster]

I do feel for you, even being on the opposite side of the issue. The press is too driven to present outrage, so you lose the message 99% of the people were there to deliver.

[soundsgoodtome]

This is how it played out in Austin, which may or may not be the protest you’re referring to.

IMO, the biggest issue here is that no one has any patience for anything anymore (outside of what they’re getting paid to be thoughtful about), so nuance has gone out the window.

[akomtu]

Such rallies are a lot closer to gypsy dancing where a bunch of drugged participants create a whirlpool of emotions, turn off their minds and unleash their animal side. Speeches there serve as mantras of some sort: they must sound a certain rhythmic way, but their meaning is irrelevant.