you are in disagreement with the people that originally secured abortion rights in the united states, and those that i am taking cues from that are currently leading the fight
don't really know how i can explain this aside from suggesting you read Without Apology again, without doxxing radical feminist activists in the south so you can go ask them
I'm going to reply to the other post later, but what do you think the right term for a person who is not pro-choice should be?
it doesn't really fucking matter if you think that it should be available as a service for other people
you are pro-abortion, legally speaking, and mealy mouthed moral triangulation is a large part of why abortion rights were slowly eroded over the last 50 years, by both parties
Giggles_Funsworth on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited July 2022
A lot of pro-choice people are people who don't want it. Why would they call themselves pro-abortion?
Fencingsax on
+3
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
So to be clear, we should use pro-abortion and anti-abortion? Ok
Pro-Choice is better.
Because you can personally be against abortion if you aren't trying to take it away from anyone else and still be Pro-Choice.
They have workedshopped the hell out of this. I believe the reasoning is in part to confront directly what the right is and that you shouldn't shy away from it. By making abortion into a hushed naughty word you're playing the game by the enemy's terms. Your logic is that of the 90s, and one that they are directly trying to refute as being ineffective.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
+2
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
So to be clear, we should use pro-abortion and anti-abortion? Ok
Pro-Choice is better.
Because you can personally be against abortion if you aren't trying to take it away from anyone else and still be Pro-Choice.
They have workedshopped the hell out of this. I believe the reasoning is in part to confront directly what the right is and that you shouldn't shy away from it. By making abortion into a hushed naughty word you're playing the game by the enemy's terms. Your logic is that of the 90s, and one that they are directly trying to refute as being ineffective.
it's older than that, seriously, this has been a discussion since the liberals forced the radicals that originally got RvW passed out of the larger feminist movement, and the popular history of it
this all started going into motion in the first half of the seventies
I think it forces divisions between people who otherwise agree which is perhaps the point: widen the divide, precipitate a crisis, get all this over with. If that's the strategy, it makes sense.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
Which is why pro-abortion isn't used, because no one is happy about, say, chemotherapy. But it's better than it not being an option.
please read Without Apology
this is a lie from the conservative right that the democratic party has gradually bought into as they shifted further and further right
RvW happened after a series of public illegal speakouts, where the wider feminist movement realized that they didn't generally feel that bad about their abortions, aside from the stigma against them
you are in disagreement with the people that originally secured abortion rights in the united states, and those that i am taking cues from that are currently leading the fight
don't really know how i can explain this aside from suggesting you read Without Apology again, without doxxing radical feminist activists in the south so you can go ask them
I'm going to reply to the other post later, but what do you think the right term for a person who is not pro-choice should be?
it doesn't really fucking matter if you think that it should be available as a service for other people
you are pro-abortion, legally speaking, and mealy mouthed moral triangulation is a large part of why abortion rights were slowly eroded over the last 50 years, by both parties
Okay so pro-abortion and anti-abortion. You suggested not to use anti-choice, but left out the rest.
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
you are in disagreement with the people that originally secured abortion rights in the united states, and those that i am taking cues from that are currently leading the fight
don't really know how i can explain this aside from suggesting you read Without Apology again, without doxxing radical feminist activists in the south so you can go ask them
I'm going to reply to the other post later, but what do you think the right term for a person who is not pro-choice should be?
it doesn't really fucking matter if you think that it should be available as a service for other people
you are pro-abortion, legally speaking, and mealy mouthed moral triangulation is a large part of why abortion rights were slowly eroded over the last 50 years, by both parties
Okay so pro-abortion and anti-abortion. You suggested not to use anti-choice, but left out the rest.
forced birth is also generally acceptable for anti-abortion, if people are aware of what you're talking about from the context, frames the issue a lot more accurately
also, sorry for leaving out the suggested corrective action, pretty busy with all that shit rn and i'm adhd as hell
Ironically the biggest barrier to changing terminology is probably that life and choice are monosyllabic
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I don't think anyone is actually "pro-abortion".
I'm also pretty sure we've had this exact discussion before.
I’ll phrase it this way:
Replace abortion with any other medical procedure. You normally don’t need to say you’re for it because they are non-controversial. But because of US Politics, abortion is.
By using the choice framing, you provide some room in the debate for abortion to remain controversial; you enable there to be ground where it’s not some normal part of medical care but a necessary evil.
And that’s where the forced-birth folks find their wedge in the debate.
Ironically the biggest barrier to changing terminology is probably that life and choice are monosyllabic
Probably more that these are entrenched terms that have had generally broadly accepted and used definitions people have internalized as part of their identities over the past 50 years.
Trying to change those accepted terms is a very uphill battle and usually seems like an awkward trying to make fetch happen out of touch effort.
So JBE should have vetoed that travesty for the symbolism, but Louisiana is not under Democratic control. GOP has a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of the Lousiana legislature and would have overridden the veto.
that's my bad, must've misunderstood what my friend was saying last september
point is, JBE is an anti-abortion democrat, just like many currently elected democrats, and formerly elected democrats that have been working with their republican colleagues to dismantle RvW since immediately after the initial decision
i understand how you might not be aware of this history as a long time conservative, but acting like the democratic party are the heroes of this story is ahistorical nonsense, just like it is with civil rights and labor as soon as those struggles came into conflict with capital and other entrenched power structures that were present in both parties, especially after they started pivoting towards neoliberalism with Carter
also I'd really appreciate it if you didn't misgender people for pithy mod dunks
I think everyone here understands that the Democratic Party is a coalition with different stances and that until not-so-long ago an anti-choice Democrat was fairly common. They still exist, but not nearly in the same numbers.
I think every person on this thread would vote against the hold-outs in a primary if they are in their district. What else would you have us do? I'm not looking to argue with your response, but am genuinely interested in the Leftist view. What is it that you (and I also welcome the opinion of other Leftists in this thread) consider to be the bare minimum response for a Democratic Party voter to not be culpable for the overturning of RvW?
For one, hold accountable Democratic Leadership for backing anti-choice candidates over pro-choice candidates in the primaries, such as was the situation with Cuellar.
Acknowledge leadership actually does have agency in the problem and actively, repeatedly, backs these kinds of conservative democrats over progressives when push comes to shove.
The second part I get and agree with. Even in the most conservative areas there should still be a minimum level of acceptance of the party platform to get party support. I also don't think you're going to see DNC support for anti-choice candidates in the future. At least I hope not.
I don't really know how to do the first part, though. That was really what I meant by my question in the first place.
cuellar's primary was concurrent with the RvW leak, biden was going to nominate an anti-abortion judge until it became a scandal, and the whole blue dog project was rahm immanuel's thing, right after obama was elected on a surge of votes that believed he was going to create progressive change; so i really question why you think the democrats are going to change course on this, when their leadership has been in office for most of the erosion if RvW in the first place
wrt what you can do, firstly, stop using language like anti-choice that obfuscates what you're talking about, abortion isn't actually that unpopular when you poll about it in clear language, and it stifles turnout for both elections and protests when people don't realize what's at stake
past that, your approach is going to need to be pretty local
rn i am helping to lead my local dsa chapter to push for local decriminalization, and i'm organizing a wider effort to get other florida dsa chapters collaborating on this issue, we're going to be releasing our own reproductive-justice demands, similar to tampa dsa (you can find them on their instagram and there's a petition as well)
the day the decision was released a group of progressive prosecutors, including the one over in hillsborough county, released a statement saying they wouldn't be charging abortion crimes, if the state government moved to make them illegal
over here, our prosecutor is a republican, so part of our decriminalization campaign is probably going to involve unseating him and getting somebody elected that will work with us
as part of the wider effort we're already seeing up a training for our members with an abortion fund that needs volunteers and funds to help people get abortions, even before this decision, people were coming to central florida from as far away as texas because so many clinics between here and there have gradually been bombed out of existence (last one in pensacola shut down a couple months back after a long stochastic terror campaign)
we're also going to be attacking funding sources for crisis pregnancy centers (fake abortion clinics that mislead and delay women until they're ineligible for abortion) via previous electoral successes and relationships we've developed
and eventually we're going to combine all this pressure into guilting a more institutional org with better financial and legal resources into helping us pass a ballot initiative, to permanently protect abortion access in florida
i can't really tell you what to do where you live, because all of this is based off of previous work and a lot of local power mapping and legal analysis (a lot of which is still on progress for this new challenge); but if i was back home in california, or new york, i'd definitely be working on replacing democratic party leadership that allowed this to happen, over the course of 50 years, and seem content so far to use the lives of my friends and family as bargaining chips for midterms and fundraising emails
my message is the same as it was in 2020, it's still all hands on deck, you need to be doing more, if you don't want to be another complicit person with a monstrous regime in the history books
You're lucky. My local DSA chapter hasn't done shit w/r/t Roe since the 24th. It's too busy signal boosting Russian propaganda to take up arms on this.
Also, someone brought up that things like life expectancy and healthcare have plateaued in the US, but that's not really accurate. They've improved and kept pace with places like Canada and the EU in the blue states that have maintained solid Dem control and enacted Dem policies like California, Washington, and Connecticut. The top ten for life expectancy are all deep blue. The bottom 10 are all deep red. It absolutely matters who's in charge.
You can make that same disaggregated argument for probably most OECD countries too though. One should compare apples (countries) to other apples (countries) and not compare apples (countries) to subnations (states) cause you're gonna find a lot of discrepancies like that.
That aside, wealthier areas = higher life expectancy isn't surprising, it's the fact that the US as a whole lags behind all other OECD countries and spends more on healthcare than all of them and is wealthier than all of them and the ACA from a purely correlational standpoint hasn't addressed that. Maybe healthcare isn't "appreciably worse" than before the ACA but over the last 20, 30. 40 years it's always been a consistent lag behind the rest of the OECD.
You can use things like Medicaid expansion to track the benefits of the ACA comparing state vs state or before vs after expansion. They function as the kind of natural experiments researchers love. And the results show improvements in health outcomes and other related issues.
Given recent advances in econometrics I would be highly skeptical of any study that does a simple diff-in-diff to determine changes in health outcomes caused by the ACA.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
What you're describing is a difference-in-differences empirical strategy that is what some researchers call a "natural experiment", and econometricians over the last two years have highlighted a lot of statistical problems with that strategy in providing causal evidence. So I'm skeptical of the studies you're alluding to if they've been done before roughly early 2021 (as I am skeptical of any study using that strategy before 2021 given the new advances).
So as not to clog up the thread with heavy econometrics math I'll just say if you're interested shoot me a PM and I'll explain the issues.
Ok, but are you quibbling with the methodology or do you actually think the ACA has not produced measurable changes in health outcomes?
This is a weird question to ask. If you're going to point to a body of scholarship and say "ah but this shows X" and I say be skeptical of it, coming back and saying "well what's your belief?" is kinda bizarre. You pointed to empirics so we're discussing empirics
Ironically the biggest barrier to changing terminology is probably that life and choice are monosyllabic
Probably more that these are entrenched terms that have had generally broadly accepted and used definitions people have internalized as part of their identities over the past 50 years.
Trying to change those accepted terms is a very uphill battle and usually seems like an awkward trying to make fetch happen out of touch effort.
I would say you are wrong about this and we in fact regularly adjust and recontextualize terminology all the time
More to the point, it doesn’t matter if it’s “difficult,” it’s part of the work that has to be done to combat the right’s propaganda.
Ironically the biggest barrier to changing terminology is probably that life and choice are monosyllabic
Probably more that these are entrenched terms that have had generally broadly accepted and used definitions people have internalized as part of their identities over the past 50 years.
Trying to change those accepted terms is a very uphill battle and usually seems like an awkward trying to make fetch happen out of touch effort.
I find it fascinatingly bold, kind of like cutting off a finger to prove your loyalty, only not as wasteful
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Also, someone brought up that things like life expectancy and healthcare have plateaued in the US, but that's not really accurate. They've improved and kept pace with places like Canada and the EU in the blue states that have maintained solid Dem control and enacted Dem policies like California, Washington, and Connecticut. The top ten for life expectancy are all deep blue. The bottom 10 are all deep red. It absolutely matters who's in charge.
You can make that same disaggregated argument for probably most OECD countries too though. One should compare apples (countries) to other apples (countries) and not compare apples (countries) to subnations (states) cause you're gonna find a lot of discrepancies like that.
That aside, wealthier areas = higher life expectancy isn't surprising, it's the fact that the US as a whole lags behind all other OECD countries and spends more on healthcare than all of them and is wealthier than all of them and the ACA from a purely correlational standpoint hasn't addressed that. Maybe healthcare isn't "appreciably worse" than before the ACA but over the last 20, 30. 40 years it's always been a consistent lag behind the rest of the OECD.
You can use things like Medicaid expansion to track the benefits of the ACA comparing state vs state or before vs after expansion. They function as the kind of natural experiments researchers love. And the results show improvements in health outcomes and other related issues.
Given recent advances in econometrics I would be highly skeptical of any study that does a simple diff-in-diff to determine changes in health outcomes caused by the ACA.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
What you're describing is a difference-in-differences empirical strategy that is what some researchers call a "natural experiment", and econometricians over the last two years have highlighted a lot of statistical problems with that strategy in providing causal evidence. So I'm skeptical of the studies you're alluding to if they've been done before roughly early 2021 (as I am skeptical of any study using that strategy before 2021 given the new advances).
So as not to clog up the thread with heavy econometrics math I'll just say if you're interested shoot me a PM and I'll explain the issues.
Ok, but are you quibbling with the methodology or do you actually think the ACA has not produced measurable changes in health outcomes?
This is a weird question to ask. If you're going to point to a body of scholarship and say "ah but this shows X" and I say be skeptical of it, coming back and saying "well what's your belief?" is kinda bizarre. You pointed to empirics so we're discussing empirics
I'm asking if you think the evidence is so wrong that it's entirely useless and if you also along with that think that better methods would turn up no evidence that the ACA actually helped overall. Or if you just think they are probably doing a poor job of measuring the effect. It's the only really relevant question in this tangent given that the discussion is whether Democrats controlling government actually made people's lives better or not, with the ACA being an example of that.
Ironically the biggest barrier to changing terminology is probably that life and choice are monosyllabic
Probably more that these are entrenched terms that have had generally broadly accepted and used definitions people have internalized as part of their identities over the past 50 years.
Trying to change those accepted terms is a very uphill battle and usually seems like an awkward trying to make fetch happen out of touch effort.
I would say you are wrong about this and we in fact regularly adjust and recontextualize terminology all the time
More to the point, it doesn’t matter if it’s “difficult,” it’s part of the work that has to be done to combat the right’s propaganda.
Is the use of the word "pro-choice" even a part of the problem, let alone the most relevant part of it at the moment?
So JBE should have vetoed that travesty for the symbolism, but Louisiana is not under Democratic control. GOP has a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of the Lousiana legislature and would have overridden the veto.
that's my bad, must've misunderstood what my friend was saying last september
point is, JBE is an anti-abortion democrat, just like many currently elected democrats, and formerly elected democrats that have been working with their republican colleagues to dismantle RvW since immediately after the initial decision
i understand how you might not be aware of this history as a long time conservative, but acting like the democratic party are the heroes of this story is ahistorical nonsense, just like it is with civil rights and labor as soon as those struggles came into conflict with capital and other entrenched power structures that were present in both parties, especially after they started pivoting towards neoliberalism with Carter
also I'd really appreciate it if you didn't misgender people for pithy mod dunks
I think everyone here understands that the Democratic Party is a coalition with different stances and that until not-so-long ago an anti-choice Democrat was fairly common. They still exist, but not nearly in the same numbers.
I think every person on this thread would vote against the hold-outs in a primary if they are in their district. What else would you have us do? I'm not looking to argue with your response, but am genuinely interested in the Leftist view. What is it that you (and I also welcome the opinion of other Leftists in this thread) consider to be the bare minimum response for a Democratic Party voter to not be culpable for the overturning of RvW?
For one, hold accountable Democratic Leadership for backing anti-choice candidates over pro-choice candidates in the primaries, such as was the situation with Cuellar.
Acknowledge leadership actually does have agency in the problem and actively, repeatedly, backs these kinds of conservative democrats over progressives when push comes to shove.
The second part I get and agree with. Even in the most conservative areas there should still be a minimum level of acceptance of the party platform to get party support. I also don't think you're going to see DNC support for anti-choice candidates in the future. At least I hope not.
I don't really know how to do the first part, though. That was really what I meant by my question in the first place.
cuellar's primary was concurrent with the RvW leak, biden was going to nominate an anti-abortion judge until it became a scandal, and the whole blue dog project was rahm immanuel's thing, right after obama was elected on a surge of votes that believed he was going to create progressive change; so i really question why you think the democrats are going to change course on this, when their leadership has been in office for most of the erosion if RvW in the first place
wrt what you can do, firstly, stop using language like anti-choice that obfuscates what you're talking about, abortion isn't actually that unpopular when you poll about it in clear language, and it stifles turnout for both elections and protests when people don't realize what's at stake
past that, your approach is going to need to be pretty local
rn i am helping to lead my local dsa chapter to push for local decriminalization, and i'm organizing a wider effort to get other florida dsa chapters collaborating on this issue, we're going to be releasing our own reproductive-justice demands, similar to tampa dsa (you can find them on their instagram and there's a petition as well)
the day the decision was released a group of progressive prosecutors, including the one over in hillsborough county, released a statement saying they wouldn't be charging abortion crimes, if the state government moved to make them illegal
over here, our prosecutor is a republican, so part of our decriminalization campaign is probably going to involve unseating him and getting somebody elected that will work with us
as part of the wider effort we're already seeing up a training for our members with an abortion fund that needs volunteers and funds to help people get abortions, even before this decision, people were coming to central florida from as far away as texas because so many clinics between here and there have gradually been bombed out of existence (last one in pensacola shut down a couple months back after a long stochastic terror campaign)
we're also going to be attacking funding sources for crisis pregnancy centers (fake abortion clinics that mislead and delay women until they're ineligible for abortion) via previous electoral successes and relationships we've developed
and eventually we're going to combine all this pressure into guilting a more institutional org with better financial and legal resources into helping us pass a ballot initiative, to permanently protect abortion access in florida
i can't really tell you what to do where you live, because all of this is based off of previous work and a lot of local power mapping and legal analysis (a lot of which is still on progress for this new challenge); but if i was back home in california, or new york, i'd definitely be working on replacing democratic party leadership that allowed this to happen, over the course of 50 years, and seem content so far to use the lives of my friends and family as bargaining chips for midterms and fundraising emails
my message is the same as it was in 2020, it's still all hands on deck, you need to be doing more, if you don't want to be another complicit person with a monstrous regime in the history books
You're lucky. My local DSA chapter hasn't done shit w/r/t Roe since the 24th. It's too busy signal boosting Russian propaganda to take up arms on this.
Ironically the biggest barrier to changing terminology is probably that life and choice are monosyllabic
Probably more that these are entrenched terms that have had generally broadly accepted and used definitions people have internalized as part of their identities over the past 50 years.
Trying to change those accepted terms is a very uphill battle and usually seems like an awkward trying to make fetch happen out of touch effort.
I would say you are wrong about this and we in fact regularly adjust and recontextualize terminology all the time
More to the point, it doesn’t matter if it’s “difficult,” it’s part of the work that has to be done to combat the right’s propaganda.
Is the use of the word "pro-choice" even a part of the problem, let alone the most relevant part of it at the moment?
if you're going to bother doing communication about this, it's worth doing right, and i am relaying best practices and materials from people who have been involved in this for a lot longer than i've been alive
of course it's not the most important part
nothing is, there's no silver bullets and there never have been, just long slow change made up of thousands of individual actions that shape our culture
The ACA has "helped overall," in that having it is better than not having it.
But that does not invalidate the statement that the average American's quality of life has decreased, overall, so please stop acting like it does.
Sure it does. Because the actual statement was that people average quality of life had decreased "no matter who has been in office for the past 40 years". Which is simply not true. And especially silly given this thread is specifically about an issue where people's quality of life is going to get worse specifically based on who was in charge at the right time.
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
The ACA has "helped overall," in that having it is better than not having it.
But that does not invalidate the statement that the average American's quality of life has decreased, overall, so please stop acting like it does.
Sure it does. Because the actual statement was that people average quality of life had decreased "no matter who has been in office for the past 40 years". Which is simply not true. And especially silly given this thread is specifically about an issue where people's quality of life is going to get worse specifically based on who was in charge at the right time.
or like any of my posts in the last couple pages
because it's been 50 years, both parties, on this issue
coincidentally wages have been stagnating since then too
a large obstacle to even creating change in the united states today is creating material conditions that allow people to have the time to organize
most the people that are the most hardup have more than one job, and a dual income household is the norm, i don't even know that the civil rights movement would be possible today, with the amount of free time activists have
Ironically the biggest barrier to changing terminology is probably that life and choice are monosyllabic
Probably more that these are entrenched terms that have had generally broadly accepted and used definitions people have internalized as part of their identities over the past 50 years.
Trying to change those accepted terms is a very uphill battle and usually seems like an awkward trying to make fetch happen out of touch effort.
I would say you are wrong about this and we in fact regularly adjust and recontextualize terminology all the time
More to the point, it doesn’t matter if it’s “difficult,” it’s part of the work that has to be done to combat the right’s propaganda.
Is the use of the word "pro-choice" even a part of the problem, let alone the most relevant part of it at the moment?
if you're going to bother doing communication about this, it's worth doing right, and i am relaying best practices and materials from people who have been involved in this for a lot longer than i've been alive
of course it's not the most important part
nothing is, there's no silver bullets and there never have been, just long slow change made up of thousands of individual actions that shape our culture
language has always been a big part of that
It seems like the best practices in communication here would be most directly about whether your language is growing or shrinking your coalition. Does this kind of messaging make your position more popular? Does fighting about?
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
Ironically the biggest barrier to changing terminology is probably that life and choice are monosyllabic
Probably more that these are entrenched terms that have had generally broadly accepted and used definitions people have internalized as part of their identities over the past 50 years.
Trying to change those accepted terms is a very uphill battle and usually seems like an awkward trying to make fetch happen out of touch effort.
I would say you are wrong about this and we in fact regularly adjust and recontextualize terminology all the time
More to the point, it doesn’t matter if it’s “difficult,” it’s part of the work that has to be done to combat the right’s propaganda.
Is the use of the word "pro-choice" even a part of the problem, let alone the most relevant part of it at the moment?
if you're going to bother doing communication about this, it's worth doing right, and i am relaying best practices and materials from people who have been involved in this for a lot longer than i've been alive
of course it's not the most important part
nothing is, there's no silver bullets and there never have been, just long slow change made up of thousands of individual actions that shape our culture
language has always been a big part of that
It seems like the best practices in communication here would be most directly about whether your language is growing or shrinking your coalition. Does this kind of messaging make your position more popular? Does fighting about?
yes, we have even lost recent elections where we weren't clear about this
this is all covered real well in the book i keep recommending
0
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Ironically the biggest barrier to changing terminology is probably that life and choice are monosyllabic
Probably more that these are entrenched terms that have had generally broadly accepted and used definitions people have internalized as part of their identities over the past 50 years.
Trying to change those accepted terms is a very uphill battle and usually seems like an awkward trying to make fetch happen out of touch effort.
I would say you are wrong about this and we in fact regularly adjust and recontextualize terminology all the time
More to the point, it doesn’t matter if it’s “difficult,” it’s part of the work that has to be done to combat the right’s propaganda.
Is the use of the word "pro-choice" even a part of the problem, let alone the most relevant part of it at the moment?
if you're going to bother doing communication about this, it's worth doing right, and i am relaying best practices and materials from people who have been involved in this for a lot longer than i've been alive
of course it's not the most important part
nothing is, there's no silver bullets and there never have been, just long slow change made up of thousands of individual actions that shape our culture
language has always been a big part of that
It seems like the best practices in communication here would be most directly about whether your language is growing or shrinking your coalition. Does this kind of messaging make your position more popular? Does fighting about?
yes, we have even lost recent elections where we weren't clear about this
this is all covered real well in the book i keep recommending
An indispensable guide to building a fighting feminist movement for reproductive freedom
With an antiabortion majority on the Supreme Court and several states attempting to outlaw abortion altogether, many activists are on the defensive, hoping to hold on to reproductive rights in a few places and cases. This spirited book shows how feminism can start winning again.
Jenny Brown uncovers a century of legal abortion in the United States until 1873, recalls women’s experiences in the illegal days, and shows how the women’s liberation movement of the 1960s really won abortion rights. She draws inspiration and lessons from the radicals of Redstockings, the Army of Three, and the Jane Collective, putting together a road map for today’s organizers from the black feminist argument for reproductive justice, the successful fight to make the morning-after pill available over the counter, and the recent mass movement to repeal Ireland’s abortion ban.
Brown argues that politically conservative nonprofits have been setting the agenda, emphasizing rare tragic cases and relying on the rhetoric of choice and privacy. Instead, it is time to return to the fundamental ideas that won legal abortion in the first place: Women publicly telling the full truth of their own experience, demanding repeal of all abortion restrictions, and showing how abortion and birth control are the key demands in the struggle for women’s freedom.
Man I’m gonna end up adding another to my backlog, aren’t I
Ironically the biggest barrier to changing terminology is probably that life and choice are monosyllabic
Probably more that these are entrenched terms that have had generally broadly accepted and used definitions people have internalized as part of their identities over the past 50 years.
Trying to change those accepted terms is a very uphill battle and usually seems like an awkward trying to make fetch happen out of touch effort.
I would say you are wrong about this and we in fact regularly adjust and recontextualize terminology all the time
More to the point, it doesn’t matter if it’s “difficult,” it’s part of the work that has to be done to combat the right’s propaganda.
Is the use of the word "pro-choice" even a part of the problem, let alone the most relevant part of it at the moment?
if you're going to bother doing communication about this, it's worth doing right, and i am relaying best practices and materials from people who have been involved in this for a lot longer than i've been alive
of course it's not the most important part
nothing is, there's no silver bullets and there never have been, just long slow change made up of thousands of individual actions that shape our culture
language has always been a big part of that
It seems like the best practices in communication here would be most directly about whether your language is growing or shrinking your coalition. Does this kind of messaging make your position more popular? Does fighting about?
yes, we have even lost recent elections where we weren't clear about this
this is all covered real well in the book i keep recommending
Since we can't read said book in the next few minutes, maybe you could actually walk the rest of the thread through an outline of the arguments of said book.
Also, someone brought up that things like life expectancy and healthcare have plateaued in the US, but that's not really accurate. They've improved and kept pace with places like Canada and the EU in the blue states that have maintained solid Dem control and enacted Dem policies like California, Washington, and Connecticut. The top ten for life expectancy are all deep blue. The bottom 10 are all deep red. It absolutely matters who's in charge.
You can make that same disaggregated argument for probably most OECD countries too though. One should compare apples (countries) to other apples (countries) and not compare apples (countries) to subnations (states) cause you're gonna find a lot of discrepancies like that.
That aside, wealthier areas = higher life expectancy isn't surprising, it's the fact that the US as a whole lags behind all other OECD countries and spends more on healthcare than all of them and is wealthier than all of them and the ACA from a purely correlational standpoint hasn't addressed that. Maybe healthcare isn't "appreciably worse" than before the ACA but over the last 20, 30. 40 years it's always been a consistent lag behind the rest of the OECD.
You can use things like Medicaid expansion to track the benefits of the ACA comparing state vs state or before vs after expansion. They function as the kind of natural experiments researchers love. And the results show improvements in health outcomes and other related issues.
Given recent advances in econometrics I would be highly skeptical of any study that does a simple diff-in-diff to determine changes in health outcomes caused by the ACA.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
What you're describing is a difference-in-differences empirical strategy that is what some researchers call a "natural experiment", and econometricians over the last two years have highlighted a lot of statistical problems with that strategy in providing causal evidence. So I'm skeptical of the studies you're alluding to if they've been done before roughly early 2021 (as I am skeptical of any study using that strategy before 2021 given the new advances).
So as not to clog up the thread with heavy econometrics math I'll just say if you're interested shoot me a PM and I'll explain the issues.
Ok, but are you quibbling with the methodology or do you actually think the ACA has not produced measurable changes in health outcomes?
This is a weird question to ask. If you're going to point to a body of scholarship and say "ah but this shows X" and I say be skeptical of it, coming back and saying "well what's your belief?" is kinda bizarre. You pointed to empirics so we're discussing empirics
I'm asking if you think the evidence is so wrong that it's entirely useless and if you also along with that think that better methods would turn up no evidence that the ACA actually helped overall. Or if you just think they are probably doing a poor job of measuring the effect. It's the only really relevant question in this tangent given that the discussion is whether Democrats controlling government actually made people's lives better or not, with the ACA being an example of that.
I don't think any evidence is worthless, but I think that the recent methodological issues raised with those kind of studies make it to where it's not super clear cut based on that body of scholarship.
Which I mean, you brought up in response to me discussing comparisons between OECD countries and the US in terms of overall health, not "was the net effect of the ACA positive". My entire point of this is that, despite the ACA passing, US life expectancy when compared to the rest of the OECD is substantially different (and lower) despite the amount the US spends on healthcare. As I previously said, the ACA was beneficial (and I think that because of my personal experience with it) but was not enough to stem declining American health outcomes.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I mean, the problem has always been the Democrats couldn't act on their ambitions, not any sort of ridiculous "both sides are the same" nonsense.
The ACA has "helped overall," in that having it is better than not having it.
But that does not invalidate the statement that the average American's quality of life has decreased, overall, so please stop acting like it does.
Yeah I'm just gonna slap a big ol' [citation needed] on this assertion of yours.
Are you joking? Like, honestly are you joking?
Wages stagnant, housing prices out of control, every few years there's some sort of recession, education prices out of control, debt is rising.
The quality of life my parents had vs me is ridiculous. Are you really not aware of any of the issues facing the working class now vs 50 years ago?
US life expectancy data is grim
US life expectancy is literally years lower than comparable countries, despite the US spending almost twice as much on healthcare per person as the next country. And that's if you're white! Structural inequality has made the life expectancy gap between white and Black individuals dramatic enough that the lead on the study in the article said it was as though they were "living in different countries."
Ironically the biggest barrier to changing terminology is probably that life and choice are monosyllabic
Probably more that these are entrenched terms that have had generally broadly accepted and used definitions people have internalized as part of their identities over the past 50 years.
Trying to change those accepted terms is a very uphill battle and usually seems like an awkward trying to make fetch happen out of touch effort.
I would say you are wrong about this and we in fact regularly adjust and recontextualize terminology all the time
More to the point, it doesn’t matter if it’s “difficult,” it’s part of the work that has to be done to combat the right’s propaganda.
Is the use of the word "pro-choice" even a part of the problem, let alone the most relevant part of it at the moment?
if you're going to bother doing communication about this, it's worth doing right, and i am relaying best practices and materials from people who have been involved in this for a lot longer than i've been alive
of course it's not the most important part
nothing is, there's no silver bullets and there never have been, just long slow change made up of thousands of individual actions that shape our culture
language has always been a big part of that
It seems like the best practices in communication here would be most directly about whether your language is growing or shrinking your coalition. Does this kind of messaging make your position more popular? Does fighting about?
yes, we have even lost recent elections where we weren't clear about this
this is all covered real well in the book i keep recommending
An indispensable guide to building a fighting feminist movement for reproductive freedom
With an antiabortion majority on the Supreme Court and several states attempting to outlaw abortion altogether, many activists are on the defensive, hoping to hold on to reproductive rights in a few places and cases. This spirited book shows how feminism can start winning again.
Jenny Brown uncovers a century of legal abortion in the United States until 1873, recalls women’s experiences in the illegal days, and shows how the women’s liberation movement of the 1960s really won abortion rights. She draws inspiration and lessons from the radicals of Redstockings, the Army of Three, and the Jane Collective, putting together a road map for today’s organizers from the black feminist argument for reproductive justice, the successful fight to make the morning-after pill available over the counter, and the recent mass movement to repeal Ireland’s abortion ban.
Brown argues that politically conservative nonprofits have been setting the agenda, emphasizing rare tragic cases and relying on the rhetoric of choice and privacy. Instead, it is time to return to the fundamental ideas that won legal abortion in the first place: Women publicly telling the full truth of their own experience, demanding repeal of all abortion restrictions, and showing how abortion and birth control are the key demands in the struggle for women’s freedom.
Man I’m gonna end up adding another to my backlog, aren’t I
How We Get Free is also really good, especially when paired with Elite Capture, which i know you're reading
series of real long interviews with the radical black lesbian feminists who first coined "identity politics", and started trying to look at things intersectionally, after learning from the failures of the civil rights (lots of misogyny and homophobia that helped the government break the movement) and feminist (centered around white liberals with extraordinary privilege) movements
and it's recent too, so it's a very useful retrospective from the people that were there
(both of these are also very short easy reads, which is why i keep recommending them, as somebody with a learning disability that makes reading theory inordinately difficult)
Ironically the biggest barrier to changing terminology is probably that life and choice are monosyllabic
Probably more that these are entrenched terms that have had generally broadly accepted and used definitions people have internalized as part of their identities over the past 50 years.
Trying to change those accepted terms is a very uphill battle and usually seems like an awkward trying to make fetch happen out of touch effort.
I would say you are wrong about this and we in fact regularly adjust and recontextualize terminology all the time
More to the point, it doesn’t matter if it’s “difficult,” it’s part of the work that has to be done to combat the right’s propaganda.
Is the use of the word "pro-choice" even a part of the problem, let alone the most relevant part of it at the moment?
if you're going to bother doing communication about this, it's worth doing right, and i am relaying best practices and materials from people who have been involved in this for a lot longer than i've been alive
of course it's not the most important part
nothing is, there's no silver bullets and there never have been, just long slow change made up of thousands of individual actions that shape our culture
language has always been a big part of that
It seems like the best practices in communication here would be most directly about whether your language is growing or shrinking your coalition. Does this kind of messaging make your position more popular? Does fighting about?
yes, we have even lost recent elections where we weren't clear about this
this is all covered real well in the book i keep recommending
An indispensable guide to building a fighting feminist movement for reproductive freedom
With an antiabortion majority on the Supreme Court and several states attempting to outlaw abortion altogether, many activists are on the defensive, hoping to hold on to reproductive rights in a few places and cases. This spirited book shows how feminism can start winning again.
Jenny Brown uncovers a century of legal abortion in the United States until 1873, recalls women’s experiences in the illegal days, and shows how the women’s liberation movement of the 1960s really won abortion rights. She draws inspiration and lessons from the radicals of Redstockings, the Army of Three, and the Jane Collective, putting together a road map for today’s organizers from the black feminist argument for reproductive justice, the successful fight to make the morning-after pill available over the counter, and the recent mass movement to repeal Ireland’s abortion ban.
Brown argues that politically conservative nonprofits have been setting the agenda, emphasizing rare tragic cases and relying on the rhetoric of choice and privacy. Instead, it is time to return to the fundamental ideas that won legal abortion in the first place: Women publicly telling the full truth of their own experience, demanding repeal of all abortion restrictions, and showing how abortion and birth control are the key demands in the struggle for women’s freedom.
Man I’m gonna end up adding another to my backlog, aren’t I
How We Get Free is also really good, especially when paired with Elite Capture, which i know you're reading
series of real long interviews with the radical black lesbian feminists who first coined "identity politics", and started trying to look at things intersectionally, after learning from the failures of the civil rights (lots of misogyny and homophobia that helped the government break the movement) and feminist (centered around white liberals with extraordinary privilege) movements
and it's recent too, so it's a very useful retrospective from the people that were there
I mean, the problem has always been the Democrats couldn't act on their ambitions, not any sort of ridiculous "both sides are the same" nonsense.
nah
i am saying that both sides are the same about this, historically
the activists that originally got RvW passed, and the morning after pill legalized for OTC use are saying that both sides are the same about this, historically
go look at the margin the hyde amendment passed by
I mean, the problem has always been the Democrats couldn't act on their ambitions, not any sort of ridiculous "both sides are the same" nonsense.
nah
i am saying that both sides are the same about this, historically
the activists that originally got RvW passed, and the morning after pill legalized for OTC use are saying that both sides are the same about this, historically
go look at the margin the hyde amendment passed by
this is wrong
To build on this:
Both sides are pretty bad on abortion care!
one side can be pressured and intimidated into the Right Actions if you get enough people agitating for it. But to do that you actually have to ride their damned asses to get it done, not assume they actually will if you just give them the power
I mean, the problem has always been the Democrats couldn't act on their ambitions, not any sort of ridiculous "both sides are the same" nonsense.
Not according to research done by the NYT, states with democrat majorities in state legislatures, governors and local courts are worst in the nation on issues they blame republican obstruction on.
It's not that they can't act on their ambitions, it's just a line they feed you for fundraising and votes
Historically Democrats and Republicans were a lot different than they are now, to the point that any party specific history until around the 50s and 60s is wildly invalid
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I mean, the problem has always been the Democrats couldn't act on their ambitions, not any sort of ridiculous "both sides are the same" nonsense.
nah
i am saying that both sides are the same about this, historically
the activists that originally got RvW passed, and the morning after pill legalized for OTC use are saying that both sides are the same about this, historically
go look at the margin the hyde amendment passed by
this is wrong
If that were true you wouldn't be able to easily predict how a SCOTUS justice would vote on Dobbs based on which party nominated them.
Posts
it doesn't really fucking matter if you think that it should be available as a service for other people
you are pro-abortion, legally speaking, and mealy mouthed moral triangulation is a large part of why abortion rights were slowly eroded over the last 50 years, by both parties
They have workedshopped the hell out of this. I believe the reasoning is in part to confront directly what the right is and that you shouldn't shy away from it. By making abortion into a hushed naughty word you're playing the game by the enemy's terms. Your logic is that of the 90s, and one that they are directly trying to refute as being ineffective.
it's older than that, seriously, this has been a discussion since the liberals forced the radicals that originally got RvW passed out of the larger feminist movement, and the popular history of it
this all started going into motion in the first half of the seventies
We also wouldn't say that someone who has no objection to chemo but chooses not to get treatment for their personal QOL decision is anti-medicine.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
please read Without Apology
this is a lie from the conservative right that the democratic party has gradually bought into as they shifted further and further right
RvW happened after a series of public illegal speakouts, where the wider feminist movement realized that they didn't generally feel that bad about their abortions, aside from the stigma against them
Okay so pro-abortion and anti-abortion. You suggested not to use anti-choice, but left out the rest.
forced birth is also generally acceptable for anti-abortion, if people are aware of what you're talking about from the context, frames the issue a lot more accurately
also, sorry for leaving out the suggested corrective action, pretty busy with all that shit rn and i'm adhd as hell
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I’ll phrase it this way:
Replace abortion with any other medical procedure. You normally don’t need to say you’re for it because they are non-controversial. But because of US Politics, abortion is.
By using the choice framing, you provide some room in the debate for abortion to remain controversial; you enable there to be ground where it’s not some normal part of medical care but a necessary evil.
And that’s where the forced-birth folks find their wedge in the debate.
Probably more that these are entrenched terms that have had generally broadly accepted and used definitions people have internalized as part of their identities over the past 50 years.
Trying to change those accepted terms is a very uphill battle and usually seems like an awkward trying to make fetch happen out of touch effort.
You're lucky. My local DSA chapter hasn't done shit w/r/t Roe since the 24th. It's too busy signal boosting Russian propaganda to take up arms on this.
This is a weird question to ask. If you're going to point to a body of scholarship and say "ah but this shows X" and I say be skeptical of it, coming back and saying "well what's your belief?" is kinda bizarre. You pointed to empirics so we're discussing empirics
I would say you are wrong about this and we in fact regularly adjust and recontextualize terminology all the time
More to the point, it doesn’t matter if it’s “difficult,” it’s part of the work that has to be done to combat the right’s propaganda.
I find it fascinatingly bold, kind of like cutting off a finger to prove your loyalty, only not as wasteful
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm asking if you think the evidence is so wrong that it's entirely useless and if you also along with that think that better methods would turn up no evidence that the ACA actually helped overall. Or if you just think they are probably doing a poor job of measuring the effect. It's the only really relevant question in this tangent given that the discussion is whether Democrats controlling government actually made people's lives better or not, with the ACA being an example of that.
Is the use of the word "pro-choice" even a part of the problem, let alone the most relevant part of it at the moment?
But that does not invalidate the statement that the average American's quality of life has decreased, overall, so please stop acting like it does.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
i had to petition for all of this, be the change
if you're going to bother doing communication about this, it's worth doing right, and i am relaying best practices and materials from people who have been involved in this for a lot longer than i've been alive
of course it's not the most important part
nothing is, there's no silver bullets and there never have been, just long slow change made up of thousands of individual actions that shape our culture
language has always been a big part of that
I wouldn't generally use pro-reparations, pro-health care, pro-VRA, etc. to express any of my other political beliefs.
May as well just express it as a complete thought and avoid the whole debate.
Sure it does. Because the actual statement was that people average quality of life had decreased "no matter who has been in office for the past 40 years". Which is simply not true. And especially silly given this thread is specifically about an issue where people's quality of life is going to get worse specifically based on who was in charge at the right time.
lgbtq, civil rights, labor...
most movements that are about fundamental rights that intersect with bodily autonomy really
or like any of my posts in the last couple pages
because it's been 50 years, both parties, on this issue
coincidentally wages have been stagnating since then too
a large obstacle to even creating change in the united states today is creating material conditions that allow people to have the time to organize
most the people that are the most hardup have more than one job, and a dual income household is the norm, i don't even know that the civil rights movement would be possible today, with the amount of free time activists have
It seems like the best practices in communication here would be most directly about whether your language is growing or shrinking your coalition. Does this kind of messaging make your position more popular? Does fighting about?
yes, we have even lost recent elections where we weren't clear about this
this is all covered real well in the book i keep recommending
Yeah I'm just gonna slap a big ol' [citation needed] on this assertion of yours.
Man I’m gonna end up adding another to my backlog, aren’t I
Since we can't read said book in the next few minutes, maybe you could actually walk the rest of the thread through an outline of the arguments of said book.
Because I don't see how recent elections have been lost based on pro-choice vs pro-abortion. Especially when polling on this issue suggests people's views are pretty complex on the issue and tend to have a lot of caveats:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/
Are you joking? Like, honestly are you joking?
Wages stagnant, housing prices out of control, every few years there's some sort of recession, education prices out of control, debt is rising.
The quality of life my parents had vs me is ridiculous. Are you really not aware of any of the issues facing the working class now vs 50 years ago?
I don't think any evidence is worthless, but I think that the recent methodological issues raised with those kind of studies make it to where it's not super clear cut based on that body of scholarship.
Which I mean, you brought up in response to me discussing comparisons between OECD countries and the US in terms of overall health, not "was the net effect of the ACA positive". My entire point of this is that, despite the ACA passing, US life expectancy when compared to the rest of the OECD is substantially different (and lower) despite the amount the US spends on healthcare. As I previously said, the ACA was beneficial (and I think that because of my personal experience with it) but was not enough to stem declining American health outcomes.
US life expectancy data is grim
US life expectancy is literally years lower than comparable countries, despite the US spending almost twice as much on healthcare per person as the next country. And that's if you're white! Structural inequality has made the life expectancy gap between white and Black individuals dramatic enough that the lead on the study in the article said it was as though they were "living in different countries."
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
How We Get Free is also really good, especially when paired with Elite Capture, which i know you're reading
series of real long interviews with the radical black lesbian feminists who first coined "identity politics", and started trying to look at things intersectionally, after learning from the failures of the civil rights (lots of misogyny and homophobia that helped the government break the movement) and feminist (centered around white liberals with extraordinary privilege) movements
and it's recent too, so it's a very useful retrospective from the people that were there
https://www.haymarketbooks.org/books/1108-how-we-get-free
(both of these are also very short easy reads, which is why i keep recommending them, as somebody with a learning disability that makes reading theory inordinately difficult)
Embedded: an ADHD themed comic that accurately depicts my struggle to make it through my backlog of books
nah
i am saying that both sides are the same about this, historically
the activists that originally got RvW passed, and the morning after pill legalized for OTC use are saying that both sides are the same about this, historically
go look at the margin the hyde amendment passed by
this is wrong
To build on this:
Both sides are pretty bad on abortion care!
one side can be pressured and intimidated into the Right Actions if you get enough people agitating for it. But to do that you actually have to ride their damned asses to get it done, not assume they actually will if you just give them the power
Not according to research done by the NYT, states with democrat majorities in state legislatures, governors and local courts are worst in the nation on issues they blame republican obstruction on.
It's not that they can't act on their ambitions, it's just a line they feed you for fundraising and votes
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If that were true you wouldn't be able to easily predict how a SCOTUS justice would vote on Dobbs based on which party nominated them.