#it's one thing to be against restricting abortion

[thekaratcake-blog]

Hey btw by trying to restrict abortion what you're actually doing is saything that the fetus has rights to the mothers body against her will

And to pretend like unprotected sex is the only way we get there is dumb as shit, do better

But most importantly, first you don't give a shit about actual life or suffering if you wish it on others for disagreeing with you

Second if we're talking about a fetus before a certain point, the best you're gonna get on feeling emotions is "said hormones can reach it" and regardless of all of this its still not worth the life of the mother and still shouldn't have rights that no other human has

No other human has rights to others body and organs against their will, why should a fetus?

Also you did you seriously just say an abortion is never nessecary to save a life? I'm sorry did you actually? Also you realize plan b pills are being considered abortion in the us?

Also did you just quote the famously unreliable ai overview? The same oen that said people should eat one small rock a day?

And finally, you saying someone is "letting the mask slip" was talking about someone who was talking about the reality of when something is an isn't a child

Then of course, you go and tell them to rot in hell and suffer forever and that their life is terrible

Oh and finally, by pro-lifer, you of course, mean anti-choice

After all, this isn't about life, it's why Texas tried to enforce the death penality for women who'd had abortions, it's why the cry now isn't "yay we saved babies" it's "your body, my choice"

What this is about is deciding whether a woman should get to decide who's allowed to forcefully use and ALWAYS damage her body, I want to make this clear

Pregnancy is ALWAYS at least somewhat damaging to the body of the mother, and I do mean always, some significantly more than others, some causing death that could only be avoided with the termination of the child, a child is only capable of any form of thought at 24 weeks according to all of our best science and doesn't qualify as human in the same way the mother does before that

You are misinformed, you are hateful, and you are awful, abortion should be legal, you don't get to decide what a woman does with her body

Oh and, gotta love you casually glossing over the existence of rape, or the idea that maybe someone won't know contraceptive failed immediately, or maybe someone actively wanted to have a child but it's now going to come with serious medical complications, which is according to WHO, actually 15% of cases lead to potentionally life threatening complications not the 2% you quoted, but no yeah

Let's force the mother to have a child, that if she's trying to get an abortion she probably can't care for, that might kill her, which might in turn kill the child, or leave one or both of them with seriuos health complications

Now of course lets let that mother struggle, after all, the most common reason for abortions is that they are unable to have a child as it would seriously derail their life and they likely can't care for it, but you're right, better than an unthinking fetus simply not getting past a certain stage, after all, they don't actually kill it, they just take away access from the mtoher's nutrients to a thing that before 24 weeks the generally agreed upon legal limit of abortion isn't capable of thought, but no better than that lets birth it into a world who isn't ready for it, to a mother who isn't ready for it, or who was raped, or who is a child, or who would die, or who would be seriously sick, or when the child would come out with serious damage or deformities that might cause it to die an agonizing death on the table

But no, let's instead wish suffering upon others who disagree with you because that's what being "pro life" is about, it's about telling those on the other side or who disagree with you that they are evil and deserve to die, it's about shooting up planned parenthoods or leaving pregnant women to die of sepsis on the operating bed as is happening a lot now in america

Nothing says "pro life" like "I hope your life is one of fucking //suffering//."

Also btw, I also survived rape and had I gotten pregnant I would've been ten years old, do you think I should've kept that child?

Luckily I am incapable of getting pregnant but some people aren't, do you think they should've kept that child?

Oh and two your final lil comment, I did live that sort of life, and guess what? I found joy, I found joy and a loving partner, I've dedicated my time to learning and caring and fighting for rights, and I've never told a stranger on the internet that I hope they suffer forever, because that's not a thing a good person who's donig mentally well and has genuinely found joy would do, that's a thing a deranged asshole would do

read it and weep, idiots

[fictionadventurer]

.

[drdemonprince]

In a series of three studies, psychologists Lukas Wolf & Paul Hanel surveyed over 2,000 American Republicans & Democrats about their ‘fundamental values,’ and concluded that adherents to each party actually have a lot more in common with one another than they do sources of disagreement.

This lack of a meaningful difference between the two parties is, somehow, taken by the authors to be a positive and “hopeful” finding. Bizarrely, within a political paradigm in which over five million immigrants have been deported in the past four years, trans healthcare and abortion access are increasingly restricted, and $17.9 billion has been dispatched to Israel in the past year to support bombings in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran, what many liberal political analysts consider to be most important is that members of the two parties don’t disagree with one another too much.

It seems to completely elude the authors’ grasp that it’s not necessarily a positive sign for a nation’s only major parties to be in lock step with one another on virtually all substantive issues. To really determine whether “polarization” is a threat to progress or a sign of necessary rebellion, you must consider what that polarized disagreement is even about.

This is a fact that liberal commentators always ignore when they fret about the distance between conservative and liberal voters, which has supposedly been widening for the last several decades. They presume that when two groups stake out strongly opposing positions, it must inherently be a negative thing. Disagreement, after all, leads to conflict, and conflict slows down production, and so it must be bad. But if one of the leading political factions in a country is arguing for the complete eradication of transgender people from public life, for example, it is a good thing for there to be intense polarization against it.

I wrote about bad social psychology research and why "political polarization" is not the problem that liberals make it out to be in my latest newsletter! It's free to read or have narrated to you by the Substack app at this link.

[supreme-leader-stoat]

Response to your reblog before I peace out.

The argument of the immorality of abortion is built on the assumption that life inherently has value. Lives do not have any inherent value, because they are the result of millions of years of naturally occurring processes. These natural processes do not have any inherent moral value; attempting to assign one would involve invoking some sort of "god" that exists beyond the material, observable, provable world we live in, rather than some logical, clear, and distinct notion such as the one attempted to be shown. For these reasons, abortion is morally neutral.

On that note, the morality and legality of abortion are thereby a human notion, with a logically valid -though not logically sound- argument in either direction. The argument presented says that "no human life should be purposefully ended by another human being. Because that's murder." In short, they believe that murder is necessarily and inherently immoral. That's all it is though, a belief: There is no wholly logical ground to stand on with regards to murder being universally bad in all scenarios, because of its' moral neutrality as I proved above. In other words, the morality and legality of aborting a fetus is wholly subjective.

"Do you actually have an issue with my argument that a fetus is a human being with the right to life, and ending their life is murder[?]"

Yes I do. A fetus is not survivable beyond the confines of the womb for quite some time; in fact, not until right before the fetus is due to become a baby and be born, that ever-reliable 8 month mark after insemination. As such, considering the fetus is unable to survive without constant connection to the pregnant person, it stands to reason that this is an extension of their body at this point, rather than a separate entity. If one intended to claim it still was at the stages before a fetus can survive independently, then consider this implication: Parasites rely on being attached to living beings in order to survive. This includes humans. Therefore, following the earlier claim that "a fetus is a human being with the right to life, and ending their life is murder," a parasite attached to a human is also a human being with the right to life, and ending their life is murder. Therefore, it is more reasonable to claim that for most of the pregnancy cycle, a fetus is not a separate entity from the pregnant person, and by extension, "ending its' life" is not murder.

"Babies are people, too, and have the same right to life as an adult."

This is true! Because babies are not fetuses.

Just thought you would want to read this, because anti-choice rhetoric can be very harmful in shutting down the agency of pregnant people and their ability to dictate their own lives. Knowing the direction that restrictions of this kind have gone in the past, those restrictions will not stop after the illegalization of abortion. Please consider who this harms and who this helps before spreading closed-minded rhetoric of that kind.

Either morality (God-given or otherwise, because there are many secular arguments against abortion) exists or it doesn't. There is a line in the sand or there is not. If you truly intend to argue that lives have no inherent value beyond what we assign them, then not only are the two of us operating in completely irreconcilable ethical frameworks, but yours collapses under its own weight; harm, agency, all these things mattering hinges on the idea that humans and (to a lesser extent) other forms of life have inherent worth, inherent dignity, that causing the former and undermining the latter are wrong in and of themselves.

If there is no objective standard on which to hang our arguments, then everything becomes subjective; all that matters is what we value on a social and individual level. And if that's the case, why would I ever bother to value the opinions of you, a stranger on the internet, over my own? It would be unfair and wrong of me not to consider other positions, to try to see things from another person's point of view, but why should I care about fairness or rightness?

Equating an embryo or fetus to a parasite is fallacious and incorrect. Ignoring that by the scientific definition parasites have to be a different species from the host, and that a pregnancy is a two-way street that also provides benefits for the mother, embryos and fetuses are simply living out the natural development cycle that literally every other human being on the planet has gone through. The biological principles at play in parasitism and human reproduction are fundamentally different.

I could keep going. I could match your arguments with my own about how anti-life rhetoric is a slippery slope to eugenics, about how I could just as easily twist your arguments around to make social parasites out of the elderly and disabled; but in this case it's pointless, because I can't even get you to sit down and agree upon simple principles like "human lives have value" and "murder is bad" or even "there is such a thing as objective morality."

[olderthannetfic]

already seeing boneheads who don't read anything otw puts out "trump is gonna ban ao3 now" and i feel like i have several issues with this: 1. project 2025 may want to ban porn, but that's always been an uphill battle in the U.S. because of the first amendment, and there is going to be a lot of legal opposition. 2. the main legislation they're worried about, the comstock act, is going to be used to restrict mifepristone, not porn probably, and even then it only regulates obscenity "sent through the mail" because it's from the 1880s or something 3. the otw owns their own servers and if there was a real threat, would probably just be able to decamp them to another country 4. man, i wish this was the thing i was most concerned about now! so much is going to go south in this country, from trans rights to reproductive rights to our basic health care if RFK jr. gets the power to restrict vaccines and takes fluoride out of our water. i know people here who were looking to get pregnant and are now delaying it because they're terrified of a national abortion ban, since these laws are interpreting a D&C to take care of a miscarriage as "abortion." ukraine and gaza are fucked. it's not that i don't care about fanfiction and more broadly about free speech; i'm a donor to the otw. i've always been adamantly against any restrictions on obscenity, and fanfiction is a lot of how i'm getting through these terrible times. but it's like, when someone never posts about politics except "oh no they might ban ao3!" i'm just like god i wish i were you, without real problems lol

--

Yuuup. AO3 will almost certainly be fine in the short term (and in the long term, we should always back things up multiple places).

I also feel like... yes, the majority of my friends and many people on tumblr are in the US, but tumblr is also a highly international space. I'm sure there's someone living in far more of a hellhole than the immediate future US lurking here, and they may not even be in one of the places that this election will very directly and immediately affect.

I wish people would have some perspective, both because it can give us a good idea of what we have to most especially fight against but also because things are not as apocalyptic as some people seem to believe.

[aestariiwilderness]

An Ode to Simplicity :D

I have rarely, if ever, had trouble hitting a minimum word count. I like to explain things. I like to look at things in depth and from different angles. But what I love is the simple distilled truth of something. There is elegance in brevity. (Which I don't often attain to, as you can see. :D) There is also, usually, a lot less room for deception. This is one reason I favor the pro-life position. When I see pro-abortion arguments, I typically see three pages of mental and verbal gymnastics that have to speedrun through logical fallacies and into advocating ableism, discrimination, eugenics, and more on their hasty way to explain how it's actually "compassionate" and "moral" and "forward-thinking" to murder babies. Oh, sure, there are a few tired, pseudo-pithy mottos that can be tried: "the freedom/right to choose!" and "equal rights!" and "my body, my choice!" But I or anyone can drive a truck through the plot holes in those slogans with very little effort. - For example, "Freedom/right to choose!" becomes a lot less nice-sounding when you ask, "Freedom/right to choose...what?" Because it turns out that most sane people actually have some strong opinions about giving someone else the freedom and the right to choose to murder people. - "Equal rights! Human rights!" Great! So what about the rights of the human in the womb? Ask this, and you'll watch the pro-abortion crowd either fall over themselves to deny science or to reveal that they actually don't believe in equal rights for all humans -- they instead believe in equal rights for some humans and not others, based on physical and arbitrary characteristics like size, degree of development, and location. Which is what we call "inequality" and "discrimination". - "My body, my choice!" Sure! Except it's not your body that's getting torn apart by forceps or starved of nutrients, obviously, so it's not really your choice -- you're just taking it away from the baby. Not to mention that EVERY civilized society restricts the lesser right of autonomy in the event where it infringes upon another's primary right to life. (Otherwise, have fun explaining to people why you believe there shouldn't be any laws against assault, murder, rape, drinking and driving, etc.) - BONUS: "YOU'RE KILLING WOMEN!" Um, no -- you are. Where do you think women come from? Rocks? And feel free to look it up -- there is a difference between triage, tragedy, and murder. And in no medical case is an abortion the "treatment" necessary to save the mother's life -- oftentimes, it can actually put her in even more danger. Meanwhile, while the proponents of abortion have to either write essays and essays futilely attempting to claim otherwise to maintain the moral high ground OR abandon it altogether and lean into the whole infanticide-worshipping cult thing, me and any other pro-lifer can state our position as a whole pretty simply without having to do any of those things. It goes like this: "Hi! It's wrong to murder babies. Please stop doing it."

*Mic drop* That's it. That's literally it. Thanks for coming to my TED talk. :D

[sophieinwonderland]

@fenmere

Yeah, this is totally fair.

I don't think that this criteria should be imposed on other systems who don't want to follow it.

Even if I might not agree with how some other systems may classify their headmates, it does literally no harm to treat anything like a person that the system feels is one.

My own thoughts are kind of similar to how I would approach abortion. That is, if somebody considers their fetus to be a person then that's their right. Just don't apply those same standards to others and force them to agree.

If my definitions seem overly restrictive, it's partially because I'm wanting to avoid certain more extremist takes that could arise in the future.

I would like to see a basic code of ethics for the plural community that could agree on pretty simple things like "torturing your headmates is wrong." (This obviously does not apply to consensual relationships where all parties have agreed to this.) It might also be cool to shift the culture to seeing the imaginary friends of children, if they demonstrate autonomy and self-consciousness, as actual people deserving of respect and having their opinions listened to. And trying to force a child to get rid of an imaginary friend who demonstrated these traits may one day be seen as the equivalent to conversion therapy.

But that also makes it important to come to an agreement about what a headmate actually is so that these ethics aren't applied in an overly broad way.

The absolute worst case scenario would be for neopuritans to see how some writing characters may act autonomously, jump on that, and try arguing that if you write a character being tortured, then that is the equivalent to actually torturing a person yourself.

Plurality isn't really part of public discourse at the moment. But if it becomes more widespread, then I would like to try to future proof against things like this. I want definitions that are clear enough that people won't be able to apply them to demonize anyone for their writing or their fantasies or whatever else.

Answers for r/systemscringe

It seems like the subreddit is now denying the existence of imagination.

An NPC is a character in your head who you may or may not control but also isn't really a person.

You may have experienced something like this when you dream, where the other characters in the dream are completely autonomous. Although with the intelligence level of your subreddit, I wouldn't be surprised if you start claiming that dreams don't exist either.

If you were to head over to the immersive daydreaming subreddit, you would find a community that has a lot of these sorts of non-headmate characters. (And probably a few headmates that they don't realize are headmates.)

It's 2024. When are you guys going to finally learn that partial dissociative identity disorder exists? A dissociative disorder that is characterized by a lack of switching. Switching in that disorder is either rare or non-existent.

This has been in the ICD-11 since 2019. You all have had 5 years to educate yourselves!

You can't keep relying on other people to do it for you. Especially when you ban us for trying!

I'm not really sure that I understand what this user is getting at with the point about self-consciousness. I think that they are suggesting that a person who was plural wouldn't realize that they were plural because it would just be normal to them?

Which can be true if they aren't talking to people about their internal experiences, but isn't really what I'm talking about here.

When I refer to a rudimentary self-consciousness, what I am meaning is that the headmate should have its own perspectives and be able to have some awareness that those perspectives are their own and not someone else's.

The most basic version of this is an entity who could say, "I like x where you like y" to the host. This involves an implicit acknowledgment of separation. Whether the headmate is calling itself a person or a part or a spirit or something entirely different, it is aware of its own wants and desires, and that those wants and desires aren't necessarily shared by everyone in the system.

This basic level of self-consciousness isn't indicative of a headmate on its own though. Dream characters may also demonstrate this basic sort of self-consciousness. So can some daydream characters.

And lines can get blurry quickly if you have a system who is in an inner world together which is sort of like a shared daydream. Not everything that can talk in the inner world is going to be a full headmate. Some are going to be like the daydream characters of singlets. These are what we call NPCs.

Super important reminder that immersive daydreaming exists without being maladaptive!

Systems immersing themselves in the inner world can be healthy because it can allow them to develop stronger bonds with each other and lower dissociative barriers.

And even immersive daydreaming can be healthy for singlets simply because it's fun and can relieve stress. You could say somebody sitting around daydreaming for hours is dangerous but if they enjoy it, I don't really see it being any more dangerous than playing a video game a lot or other activities that don't involve social interaction. And I think it might be far more healthy than mindlessly scrolling through YouTube shorts or TikTok while they slowly deteriorate your attention span.

Daydreaming only becomes maladaptive whenever it starts to impact your life in unhealthy ways.

This really isn't that complicated!

[so-i-did-this-thing]

Hey trans Florida folks - things suck, but I want to make sure y'all have more info so you can better gauge the urgency and expected risk for a new bill.

This is another long post, but please read because a lot of folks are in a huge panic at some misleading info.

You've probably seen this by now:

This is misleading. Be incredibly concerned at the path we're on because it is bad, even plan to leave the state (I am), but drag isn't punishable by the death penalty:

From the Twitter screencap: "Florida has now: 1) made drag in public illegal as a 'sex crime against children'."

Misleading. SB 1438 censors drag in front of minors w/vague, subjective language and threatens misdemeanors, fines, and license revocation for violations. This is meant to scare businesses, and even cities. We are already seeing Pride parades canceled in Florida in response:

From the Twitter screencap: "2) made sexual crimes against children punishable by death"

Too broad. Sexual battery against a child is being made into a capital felony (aka, punishable by death) in the currently proposed SB1342 .

The bill says:

"A person 18 years of age or older who commits sexual battery upon, or in an attempt to commit sexual battery injures the sexual organs of, a person less than 12 years of age commits a capital felony".

If we want a definition of "sexual battery" itself, we can jump to Florida statues at:

https://m.flsenate.gov/statutes/794.011

"Sexual battery” means oral, anal, or female genital penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or female genital penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual battery does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose."

Also of note in this statute:

"Serious personal injury” means great bodily harm or pain, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement."

I am not a lawyer, but to me, this looks like less of an attack against trans people for existing (via conflation with anti-drag bills), and more a way to target those providing gender affirming care -- healthcare providers or even a child's affirming guardians.

Many states are already trying to set up "aiding and abetting" laws (from the anti-abortion playbook) to punish anyone offering any kind of gender affirming care (from general therapy to vocal coaching) to a trans kid.

Florida might be hoping someone applies the "injures the sexual organs of" component of SB1342 to gender-affirming puberty blockers. Yeah, it's a stretch, but I would not be surprised to see someone try it.

Because we are already seeing the HHS committee consider sending subpoenas to gender-affirming clinics:

"House Speaker Paul Renner said he wants the House to examine how the organizations adopted their recommendations. He questioned whether the guidelines were the result of scientific analysis or whether “the integrity of the medical profession has been compromised by a radical gender ideology that stands to cause permanent physical and mental harm to children and adolescents.”

Emphasis mine. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I would not be surprised to see someone try to hold a gender-affirming clinic accountable for "sexual battery" against a child.

All these separate actions paint a grim picture.

Back to our Twitter screencap: "3) Began allowing death penaltymsentencing at at 8-4 vote instead of a unanimous vote"

Yes, true. This one is scary all on its own because it makes it that much easier for the DeSantis administration to target political enemies.

Everyone should be terrified of this:

Back to making child sexual battery a capital felony & SB1342:

Could we eventually see bills proposed that further broaden - via deliberately vague language or otherwise -what kind of "sex crimes" are punishable by death, thus fully targeting trans people?

For sure, we will absolutely see fascists try to get away with whatever they can and I hope we see more resistance against what is happening now to prevent the escalation towards genocide.

But this specific bill isn't targeting drag and it's important we understand the current threat landscape so we can plan accordingly.

Like. I'm still working on my own plan to flee Florida asap (I am a trans man) but I don't feel at risk of the death penalty just yet, so my "leave asap" is "sell the house in a month" instead of "grab the bugout bag and get in the car NOW".

It is very, very important to understand the threats we face so we don't make rash decisions that could have permanent consequences for already vulnerable people. We need to plan and act on plans with haste, but afford ourselves every opportunity to make decisions with as much accurate information as possible.

What's the status of SB1342?

As I type this, still with the senate, but check for updates at the link below. If passed, it would enact October 1, 2023.

In closing

Again, be careful, be safe, be informed. I am not a legal expert; I'm just a little guy, but the risk landscape has enough threats trans people need to respond to without us thinking drag is currently eligible for the death penalty.

Every trans person in the United States, not just Florida, should be watching what is going on across the country and noting how all these bills connect and escalate. And what could become blueprints at the federal level.

Keep hope, but plan for contingencies that could threaten your job, your housing, your liberty, and possibly even your life. Watch the news, watch your local bills, and do your best at figuring out when you need to break that emergency glass.

My biggest advice to be better informed is to learn where your state posts bills and look them up when they hit the news:

Get used to reading bills and noting when they would take effect

Learn how to follow a bill on its way into law - the stages are usually through various committees, then both the House and Senate can file amendments and ultimately vote in separate sessions to approve, then the governor signs it into law

Understand that a lot of reporting on bills can make it sound like it has passed into law, when it might still just be in a committee.

Not all bills pass, and when they do, not all pass as originally proposed. (This can work for or against us.)

Follow trans political commentators like Erin or Alejandra for more context

Again, it all sucks right now and I don't want to underscore the danger so many transgender Americans are already in (and lord knows I am very lucky to be able to leave Florida). But knowing what we're up against is one of the few defenses we have right now.

I have more advice for trans Floridians here.

[anghraine]

This isn't going to turn into All US Politics All The Time blog for four years (all going about as well as possible). And I don't begrudge anyone finding comfort where they can from the various state-level small victories—the GOP losing their incredibly corrupt supermajority in NC and failing to take the governor's seat, various state measures to protect or at least advance abortion rights, my candidate for governor winning in my own state, decent performances in a lot of House races, the predictable Senate disaster not being quite as bad as it might have been in this environment.

But for me, there is something discouraging about these as well, and something overlooked in the comparisons to the 2020 election. To me, the obvious point of comparison is less 2020 than 2016.

[This is not an even slightly positive post—putting most of it below the cut so you can skip if you don't want further doom 'n gloom.]

Trump's victory in 2016 was more shocking, yes, but it came with a lot of qualifications. Most obviously, the majority of people who voted in 2016 didn't vote for him, and while this didn't change the result of the election, it did affect the sense of what was going on nationally. Hillary Clinton, a flawed candidate under investigation during the election (however obviously politically motivated that investigation—and it was reopened right before Election Day) and the object of a 30-year misogynistic campaign of relentless, unabashed right-wing and journalistic hatred, and the leader of a campaign that made some clear tactical missteps, was preferable to Trump for the majority of voters even without certainty about what his administration would do. And people could and did lie to themselves about what a Trump administration would be like because he was a posturing blowhard who'd never held office. I always thought "Trump's just saying stuff, he's really going to outflank Hillary from the left!!!" was stupid as fuck, but it's a thing people convinced themselves of.

But in 2024, we know how bad the Trump administration would be (and there's no reason to think this one won't be worse—quite the opposite). We saw how his COVID response made a bad situation orders of magnitude worse to the point that morgues were overflowing with dead bodies. We know about how unethical he is because he's been found legally liable in relation to crimes of corruption and rape. He encouraged a coup to overthrow the last election. And Kamala Harris has far less political baggage than HRC did, is more progressive, ran a better campaign, had no October Surprise, and yet is losing the popular vote quite badly (right now, with 89% of the vote counted, Trump is ahead by about five million votes).

And seeing that people are voting to protect abortion rights in their state or ousting obviously corrupt state officials etc and then also voting for Trump is on one level—okay, so ordinary voters only sort of align with the cackling evil of GOP politicians' schemes and will at times vote to restrict their awful policies even in very red states. On a pragmatic level, that's better than being fully aligned with those policies. But on another level, I find it appalling. This loss isn't about any particular policy and I think you're fooling yourself if you think any One Magic Trick could have changed this result—that was possible in 2016, potentially, but not in this election. A lot of people are voting against specific Republican agendas and then voting for Donald Trump and JD fucking Vance.

Obviously racist misogyny (and misogynoir particularly) is likely a major culprit given that this disparity wasn't present even in far more unfavorable-on-paper conditions in 2016 against a profoundly unpopular white woman after an eight-year Democratic administration. There's the weird cult of personality around Trump. Etc. But I'm also thinking about how the most successful period for Democrats during this cycle was when they veered away from anything to do with actual policies and were like "these Republican politicians are the weird freaks with bad vibes actually." I'm thinking about how the vast majority of the country went significantly rightwards even in many places that Harris or Democrats won.

And it's like... maybe we won't become an autocracy, maybe he'll have another disastrously awful administration that isn't as much worse than the first as we fear, and public opinion will turn against him again and his sheer unpopularity will drive backlashes favoring Democrats in 2026 and 2028. But even that best case scenario isn't fixing what's wrong here.

[sunlightmurdock]

My Future in You | 2.3 | Bradley Bradshaw x Reader

Previous Chapter | Next Chapter | Masterlist

Synopsis: Bradley’s twenty-two years old and not where he’s supposed to be. He’s supposed to be out of the academy by now. Instead, he’s retaking his senior year of college and praying to god that he gets into flight school. Mav’s gone, his mom’s gone. He’s mad at the world. Then, a hook up at a Halloween party changes his future even more than he could have imagined.

Warnings: accidental pregnancy, references to abortion in a few chapters, angst, will be fluff eventually, enemies to lovers kinda thing, mentions of pregnancy / birth complications, mentions of not eating frequently, lack of hunger

…

The drive home in silence just gives Bradley’s anger time to multiply, growing until he’s so restless that his car door is open before the engine is even off. He slams it behind him, knuckles white around the strap of his bag as he walks around to the front door. That slams too.

It startles you, making you flinch and almost drop the mug in your hand. The now lukewarm coffee that you’ve been trying to sip at for an hour spills down onto the white of your sweater. It’s just a small mark, easy enough to ignore.

His brows knit together slightly as he catches sight of your face from the other end of your open living space. The whole way here, it had felt like he practically had steam coming out of his ears. His palms are still reddish and warm from how tightly he was grabbing the wheel. But, he sees it in the way you’re looking at him and knows that his thing — all of the anger, resentment, blinding rage that Mav brings up in him — it doesn’t matter.

Immediately, he lets his bag, and everything that seeing Mav had just stirred up within him, go.

“What’s wrong?” He’s already rushing forwards, heading for you.

You had promised yourself that you wouldn’t do this and that you wouldn’t freak him out by crying. It just happens. A soft, heartbroken squeak as he reaches you and you throw yourself against his chest.

“Did something happen at the appointment?” He breathes out, wrapping his arms around you and squeezing.

“It’s — it’s not that bad, but he…” You have to pull back and force yourself to breathe to even attempt at the words. “He’s smaller than he should be, and the doctor gave me this pamphlet, and I’ve just been freaking out all day.”

Bradley secures you against him with one arm and turns his attention to the little orange leaflet on the counter with a smiling baby girl with glasses on the front of it. He presses his lips softly to the top of your head. With his free hand, he cautiously opens up the front page.

Your hands curl into the fabric of his khakis, breathing him in, pulling him closer to you. It takes him a few moments, to read what it says and to process it. He never once lets you go.

Just giving a small shake of his head, he exhales and squeezes you closer. “Okay. What did the doctor say we need to do?”

“I need to go for a blood test on Friday and another ultrasound on Tuesday. She said that I should be eating healthy, and more frequently, um — eight hours of sleep, rest. If it’s fetal growth restriction then he could have issues during birth or even after.”

Bradley cups your face in his hands and nods slowly. You can feel his heartbeat in his chest and it just doesn’t make sense that he’s able to appear so calm when you know that he isn’t.

“Okay,” He nods, his voice low. “Alright. When was the last time you ate?”

“I had a sandwich for lunch but I just don’t feel hungry, I’ve been crying all day.” You mumble out as he presses closer to you, smoothing a large palm down your back. You nuzzle your cheek against his shirt, exhaling slowly.

Both of you stand in the kitchen, holding each other close, shit scared of what this means. This future that you have committed absolutely everything to, this little thing that you’re so ready to love, and the fear that there could be absolutely no way of protecting it.

Bradley closes his eyes and turns his face towards yours, hugging you closer. His memories of his dad are fuzzy. His memories of his mother back then are fuzzy too. He doesn’t remember her crying much. He remembers them laughing a lot. Standing here, he wishes he had at least one clear memory left — just so that he’d know what to do now.

Most people probably get to share these worries with their parents, to ask them these questions. You’ve just got each other.

He doesn’t know what to do. The silence is setting in and the orange on that pamphlet feels like it’s becoming more obnoxious by the second.

“Well, I’ll cook tonight, and I’ll be really offended if you don’t finish what I make you.” It’s half playful, he presses his lips to your cheek and pulls back to look at you, fingers trembling against your sides, “It’s just been a stressful couple of months, you just need to relax these last few weeks. ‘M gonna take care of you.”

Crowded against the kitchen counter, you take a few seconds to just be held by him, tucking yourself back in against his chest.

You imagine your mother, probably staring at those six missed calls and feeling smug with herself — knowing that you’d have come crawling back for help eventually. You’re an idiot for thinking that she would’ve been able to help. You tug Bradley closer and press your face into his shoulder. Maybe she’s not really doing that. Maybe she’s sitting there and wondering if she should call you back. Either way, it doesn’t matter.

Everything you’ve given up and gone through, this new family that you’ve scraped together, it’s all that you need.

“You wanna come to the store with me or you wanna take a nap?” Bradley asks you, smoothing his hands down along your middle.

Your answer is immediate, filling the air before silence has a chance to set in.

“I don’t want to be on my own.” You admit, exhaling softly into the warmth of his chest. Bradley nods and kisses your temple. He keeps it to himself that he’s pleased with your answer. After the mood he was in and the day that you’ve had, he just wants you where he can see you.

So, the two of you take your car. It’s easier to get into than trying to haul yourself up into the bronco these days. It’s more of a family car. It’s crazy, actually, how much you’re starting to look like a family. Him, in his uniform and an arm draped around you, your hand resting on your swollen stomach.

He drives with his hand on your thigh, your arm looped through his. Then, once you’re in the store, he pushes the cart with you at his side.

“I could ask you what you want, or I could surprise you. What are you two in the mood for?” Bradley asks, leaning down to kiss the top of your head as you hug his arm.

“I’m not hungry, I don’t know.” You shake your head softly.

“Surprise it is.” Bradley decides, taking his arm out from the loop you’re holding it in and draping it around your shoulders instead. He pulls you in against his side and presses his palm over both of your eyes, covering your vision with a sudden darkness.

“Bradley, I’m seriously going to fall break my face!” You gasp, grabbing at his hand. You don’t even notice it. He beams with pride as you smile, finally.

He nudges you in front of him, between him and the cart, laughing softly as he guides you forwards, blind. “Have a little faith in me, I’m not gonna let anything happen to you. Just can’t risk you seeing my ingredients and ruining my surprise.”

“You’re an idiot,” You giggle, grabbing tightly onto the cart to steady yourself. He grins, kissing your cheek. “I’m so scared right now.”

“Scared? — C’mon, Mama, you’ve gotta start trusting me. I’ve got you.” Bradley teases, pressing his mouth to you jaw, pressing his chest into your back and making your laugh harder. He slows you, then stops. “Stay there, I’m grabbing something. Don’t open your eyes.”

Your heart flutters as his hands briefly leave you. There’s a chill in the supermarket without his body crowding around you to keep you warm. He’s back quickly anyway, something clatters into the cart.

“What a beautiful family you are!” The voice is soft, pleasant sounding. An older lady. You peek one eye open and find her beaming at you from a few feet away.

“Thank you.” Bradley answers, surging with pride as he puts a polite amount of space between you and him, still close enough to keep you bracketed between him and the cart.

“You’ll do just fine, making each other laugh like that,” Her eyes as crinkling at the corners, a smile spreading across her aged face. She looks fondly between the two of you, then nods. “Congratulations on the little one. How lovely. Your first?”

“Yes, Ma’am.” Bradley answers. You almost sigh in relief that he’s not choosing now to try to make funny jokes.

“How lucky they will be, to have parents so in love.” She smiles. Bradley’s hand covers yours over the top of the cart, knitting his fingers through yours. Neither one of you says a word, at first. You’ve not said that yet. Technically, you’ve only been together for a few weeks. “You two have a lovely day.”

“You too, thank you.” Bradley remains polite, smiling at her softly. She looks the two of you over, fondly, almost reminiscent, and then she walks away.

Bradley catches you off guard, tearing you back away from your own thoughts as he covers your eyes once more. His lips press to your earlobe as he growls playfully, “You better not have checked out my ingredients, Seresin.”

“You’re paranoid.” You tell him, blinded under his palm, grinning dumbly as you let him guide you forwards again.

He hums playfully, pressing a gentle kiss to your neck, “Mm, I just know what Seresins are like.”

“Your baby’s going to be one,” You point out. He chuckled behind you. “You’re gonna be outnumbered.”

He uses his hold on your face to turn your head, leaning over your shoulder and kissing your lips. “Can’t wait.”

So, like the love-sick fool that you are, you let him lead you blindly around the grocery store, whispering jokes into your ear and planting playful kisses onto your neck. Your heart’s swollen and you’re so confused about how it could ever have been hurt by this same person.

Finally, after making you promise not to look several times, he uncovers your eyes and hands you the keys. Your feet are sore and there’s no point waiting in the checkout line with him. He watches you waddle out of the store with a dumb grin on his face.

It makes him want to grin as big as he can, watching the changes that come with your pregnancy. Not being able to tie your shoe laces anymore, knocking things off of the bathroom counter with your belly — waddling is a new one. It’s a special type of adorable, he’s certain that he’ll never grow tired of seeing it.

Loading your items onto the checkout, he pulls his phone from his pocket and waits, unaware of the eyes on him.

It was made abundantly clear earlier, that Bradley had no desire to speak to Maverick. He had turned, looked, and swiftly walked away. That familiar red flush covering his face and neck. He’s had that since he was in diapers, blushing a deep shade of pink whenever he was upset about something.

But now, for Maverick to be standing in a grocery store, staring at the kid that he hasn’t seen in almost two years, for the second time in the same day — it feels like fate.

He drops his items down onto a random shelf and silently walks towards the checkout as Bradley loads his groceries back into the cart.

“Bradley?”

Bradley looks up, finding Pete staring at him again. His face goes blank, and he straightens up like a cat raising its heckles. Pete doesn’t move. Bradley turns swiftly and walks out of the store without a word.

You get out of the car as you see him coming, your smile fading slightly as you notice the look on his face. That hardened, terracotta flushed look.

“Are you okay?”

“Yeah, let’s just go home.” Bradley practically tears open the trunk. Your brows draw together as you watch him load the groceries into it.

There’s a feeling, something in your peripheral that makes you turn your head. There’s a man standing by the edge of the parking lot, the colour drained from his face, staring right at you.

Pete’s head spins, heat flooding his nerves.

Looking at Bradley already feels like he’s got to be eye-to-eye with a ghost. Now, he’s standing there and suddenly it’s the summer of 1984, and his best friend’s about to have a kid. The picture’s fuzzy now, as it sits in Pete’s wallet, but it’s clear as day in his mind. Goose and Carole on the end of the Santa Monica boardwalk. She’s so pregnant that she could barely walk, but she was beaming — she had demanded to go to the beach that day.

He studies the crystal clear image before him now. Bradley in his khakis from work. The pregnant girl who’s smile has just faded, staring back at him.

Bradley takes one look at your face and then turns, following your gaze.

“Do you know that guy?” You ask gently, glancing up at Bradley.

“Wait in the car for me.” He answers you, slamming the trunk shut and turning. His pace is purposeful, storming across the parking lot until he’s almost nose-to-nose with Pete.

“What do you want?” Bradley spits.

“You… You’re having a kid?” Pete breathes out, confused, shaking his head. The reality of it hasn’t quite set in yet.

“I said: what do you want?” The same angry kid as he knew before stands in front of him again. Pete shakes his head again.

“You’re not ready to be a parent.”

“Just like I wasn’t ready to be a pilot?” Bradley answers back. You watch from beside the car as he steps closer to the older man, squaring his shoulders like he’s about to hit him.

“Think about your future! I mean — have you even thought this throu—“

“Don’t talk to me about my future after what you did.” He barks, loud enough for you to hear finally, eyes ablaze, shoulders squared. Maverick always forgets how much Bradley has grown. He looks up slightly as Bradley walks closer to him.

Maverick looks now to you, with one hand on your stomach and a confused look on your face.

“This isn’t what I wanted for you.” Maverick admits quietly. He’s not sure what makes him say it, it’s already too late, you look pretty far along. But, he says it anyway. When it comes to Bradley, there’s this intense need to do the right thing that usually propels him into doing the wrong thing.

“I didn’t mean — I shouldn’t have —“ Maverick stutters, shaking his head. It always ends like this. He always does the wrong thing. He sees the worry in your eyes. He always upsets Bradley without meaning to. “I’m sorry. Can we talk about this?”

“I don’t give a shit what you want, Mav,” Bradley shakes his head, disbelief. He stops walking finally and points a finger into Pete’s chest, deadly serious — less emotional than last time. “Stay the fuck away from me, stay the fuck away from my family.”

Blue eyes widened, serious, Maverick stares back at the boy before him. Bradley’s always had a temper, that’s nothing new. The sincerity in his tone is. He’s serious about you, it seems.

“Bradley?”

Both of them turn their heads to look at you at the same time. You swallow. His mouth sets into a hard line and it almost makes you wince. You’ve seen this before; it almost always winds up with you getting hurt.

It’s growing colder now that the sun has set. After the day you’ve had, you miss the days when you could take a hot bath. Going home and crawling under your covers would be enough at this point.

“I’m serious,” Bradley says slowly, giving his uncle a quick once over, and then taking a step back with a shake of his head. “You will never be family to me. Leave me alone.”

Without giving the man who had raised him time to argue, Bradley turns and walks back to the car, grinding his jaw.

“Who was that?” You frown.

“Come on,” Bradley sighs, shaking his head as he tugs open the passenger side door and motions for you to get in. “I’ll tell you later. I just want to go.”

You’ve seen Bradley angry — you’ve seen him being an asshole just for the sake of it. This isn’t that. You’ve never seen him rattled like this. So, you get in the car and you let him take you home, pretending not to see the way that the dark haired man watches you car pull out of the lot.

You let him cook for you and tell you about his week. You eat everything he makes you and he grins, proud of himself. After that, he insists that you spend the rest of the evening in bed. So, you do.

You spend it laying sideways with your head resting on his stomach and your legs dangling over the edge, his fingers toying with stands of your hair.

“So, who was that guy?” You ask finally.

And so, he tells you about Pete Mitchell for the first time. The man who raised him. Uncle Pete who let him stay up late and eat pizza, who came over on the days that Bradley’s mom just couldn’t stop crying. Uncle Pete who sometimes forgot that he promised to come to baseball games or pissed off an admiral and wound up in the middle of the ocean for a couple of months, so couldn’t come to that birthday party anymore.

The let downs and the wonderful memories weigh each other out. For every upside, there’s a downside with Maverick. And then it gets to Bradley’s senior year of high school, when Mav betrayed him. They hadn’t spoken since, other than at Carole’s funeral, briefly. That had gone worse than today had.

You squeeze his hand softly. “I’m sorry.”

“It’s alright,” Bradley says quietly. He smooths his hand down across my stomach. “I’m sorry that I did that in front of you. I’ve been trying to—“

You turn your head, pressing your lips gently to his knuckles. “I know.”

He exhales slowly. You know exactly how hard he had been trying for you.

“I love you.” You decide finally, leaning your head back so that you can look at him. Bradley raises his eyebrows. He’s had a couple of girls say it to him before, he’s never felt inclined to say it back. He would’ve never told them about Maverick, about his mother. He wouldn’t have ever been lying here with them, like this.

“I love you too.” He takes his hand away from your hair and strokes it along your jaw instead. You push yourself up, turning slowly towards him, kissing his lips chastely.

“We’re going to be alright. Right?” You ask quietly, resting your hand against his bare chest. His eyes soften just slightly as he gives you a calm nod.

…

@chaoticweirdogeek @alanadetigy @itsmytimetoodream @oldnatgwenaccount @khaylin27 @bioodforbiood @luckyladycreator2 @mizzzpink @cherrycola27 @unordinare @shanimallina87 @marvel-f1-and-more @heli991113 @pauv-0414 @ghxst-heart @momc95 @asteria33 @lilyevanswhore @diamond-3 @galaxy-moon @jostyriggslover96 @forgiveliv @shawnsblue @little-wiseone @lovemesomevesey @alm334 @averyhotchner @diorrfairy @thedroneranger @batdanceq @wkndwlff @littlemissobsessedwitholdermen @sunflowerziva @cassiemitchell @himbos-on-ice @bradshawseresinbabe @damrlovq @fudge13 @xoxabs88xox @mak-32 @slutfordw

[odinsblog]

Yeah, so I got to thinking about the fuckery in Arizona. They just passed an anti-abortion law from 1864, right? At that point in time, Arizona wasn’t even a state, however they did provide troops to fight in the Confederacy. It’s like they really want to “take America back(wards)” to the good old days of patriarchy on steroids + white supremacy

Anyway, it got me to thinking about what other archaic laws are on the books that Arizona might want to selectively enforce? Being Black, my first thought was, is slavery off the table or nah? What about laws against interracial marriage? Same sex marriage? What about laws restricting who could and could not vote??

There are a lot of outdated laws that are still on the books in Arizona (and other states too), but nobody on the Arizona Supreme Court is really tryna make things like adultery illegal, right? Why pick and choose or be selectively outraged about one and not the other? (answ: hypocrisy. misogyny. racism.)

Any law that was on the books before a territory became a state should be repealed, or at the very least, they should have to be reconsidered or voted on again

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Robert Reich:

Friends, Trump may force a second civil war on America with his plan to use the military to round up at least 11 million undocumented people inside the United States — even if it means breaking up families — send them to detention camps, and then deport them. As well as his plan to target his political enemies for prosecution — including Democrats, journalists, and other critics. What happens when we, especially those of us in blue states and cities, resist these authoritarian moves — as we must, as we have a moral duty to? What happens when we try to protect hardworking members of our communities who have been our neighbors and friends for years, from Trump’s federal troops? What happens when we refuse to allow Trump’s lackeys to wreak revenge on his political enemies who live within our states and communities? Will our resistance give Trump an excuse to use force against us?

This is not far-fetched. We need to answer these questions for ourselves. We should prepare. Trump has said he’ll use the Insurrection Act — which grants a president the power to “take such measures as he considers necessary” to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” He’s also said he’ll use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to end sanctuary cities. Such cities now limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Trump told Fox News’s Harris Faulkner that “we can do things in terms of moving people out.” [...]

The Enemies Act was part of a group of laws enacted at the end of the 18th century — the Alien and Sedition Acts — which severely curtailed civil liberties in the young United States, including by tightening restrictions on foreign-born Americans and limiting speech critical of the government. Would Trump essentially declare war on states and communities that oppose him? When he was president last time, he acted as if he was president only of the people who voted for him — overwhelmingly from red states and cities — and not the president of all of America. He supported legislation that hurt voters in blue states, such as his tax law that stopped deductions of state and local taxes from federal income taxes.

Two Americas

Underlying Trump’s dangerous threats is the sobering reality that we are rapidly becoming two Americas. One America is largely urban, college-educated, and racially and ethnically diverse. It voted overwhelmingly for Kamala Harris. The other America is largely rural or exurban, without college degrees, and white. It voted overwhelmingly for Trump. Even before Trump’s win, red zip codes were getting redder and blue zip codes, bluer. Of the nation’s total 3,143 counties, the number of super-landslide counties — where a presidential candidate won at least 80 percent of the vote — jumped from 6 percent in 2004 to 22 percent in 2020 and appears to be even higher in 2024. Just a dozen years ago, there were Democratic senators from Iowa, North Dakota, Ohio, Arkansas, Alaska, North Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana (two!), and West Virginia. Today, there’s close to a zero chance of a Democrat being elected to the Senate from any of these states. Surveys show that Americans find it increasingly important to live around people who share their political values. Animosity toward those in the opposing party is higher than at any time in living memory. Forty-two percent of registered voters believe Americans in the other party are “downright evil.”

[...]

Red states are becoming even more reactionary.

Since the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse Roe v. Wade left the issue of abortion to the states, 1 out of 3 women of childbearing age now lives in a state that makes it nearly impossible to obtain an abortion. Even while red states are making it harder than ever to get abortions, they’re making it easier than ever to buy guns.

Red states are also banning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in education. Florida’s Board of Education prohibited public colleges from using state and federal funds for DEI. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has required all state-funded colleges and universities close their DEI offices. In Florida and Texas, teams of “election police” were created to crack down on the rare crime of voter fraud, another fallout from Trump’s big lie. They’re banning the teaching of America’s history of racism. They’re requiring transgender students to use bathrooms and join sports teams that reflect their sex at birth. They’re making it harder to protest. They’re making it more difficult to qualify for unemployment benefits and other forms of public assistance. And harder than ever to form labor unions. They’re even passing “bounty” laws — enforced not by governments but by rewards to private citizens for filing lawsuits — on issues ranging from classroom speech to abortion to vaccination.

Blue states are becoming more progressive.

Meanwhile, several blue states, including Colorado and Vermont, are codifying a right to abortion. Some are helping cover abortion expenses for out-of-staters. When Idaho proposed a ban on abortion that empowers relatives to sue anyone who helps terminate a pregnancy after six weeks, nearby Oregon approved $15 million to help cover the abortion expenses of patients from other states. Maryland and Washington have expanded access and legal protections to out-of-state abortion patients. California has expanded access to abortion and protected abortion providers from out-of-state legal action. After the governor of Texas ordered state agencies to investigate parents for child abuse if they provide certain medical treatments to their transgender children, California enacted a law making the state a refuge for transgender youths and their families. California already bars anyone on a state payroll (including yours truly, who teaches at Berkeley) from getting reimbursed for travel to states that discriminate against LGBTQ+ people.

Robert Reich’s piece on how Donald Trump’s return to office could lead America to a 2nd American Civil War is a must-read.

[cazort]

I have seen a post circulating that talks about US politics and basically insinuates that in the upcoming presidential election, Biden is "99% Hitler" and Trump is "100% Hitler" and it makes me so frustrated that people can't see this as the disinformation and anti-vote propaganda that it is.

I'm intensely frustrated with Biden for how he has acted too little, too late on the Palestine issue, and how the U.S. continues to send billions in arms to Israel. And yet I'm going to be voting for him, and the analogy above is hugely dishonest. There is a massive difference between Biden and Trump:

The Biden administration and Democrats have strongly and unambiguously protected abortion rights, whereas Donald Trump appointed three supreme court justices who overturned Roe vs. Wade, and Republicans have across-the-board passed draconian abortion restrictions far more conservative than even their base.

Biden and the Democrats are strongly pro-LGBTQ rights including trans rights, at a time when Republicans are threatening trans rights in every state they control, and when even mainstream, "center-left" publications like the NY Times have been publishing transphobic drivel.

The Biden administration continues to expand healthcare access and work to control costs whereas the Trump administration worked to undermine much of the coverage we had.

The Trump administration was hopelessly corrupt and dysfunctional, with turnover in most appointed positions, scandal after scandal. Trump committed crime after crime in plain view, and incited an insurrection when he lost the election and has continued to back conspiracy theories undermining the very foundation of our democracy. Biden has been a relatively straightforward, "what you see is what you get" politician over his whole career, with a sort of level of flaws and corruption that is more typical of politics.

Trump had unprecedented anti-immigrant stances and under him, life became much more difficult for immigrants to the US as well as for non-citizens living here legally. Biden's administration has tried and worked against tough resistance to reverse many of the worst immigration changes made under the Trump administration, including doing things like giving 320,000 Venezuelans temporary protected status as refugees, trying to halt the border wall construction, and increasing legal immigration across-the-board.

Biden's rhetoric has become more critical of Israel over time, Biden has called for regime change and the ousting of Netanyahu, and under Biden the US Ambassador finally stopped voting against a ceasefire resolution and only abstained. Whereas Trump and the Republican's rhetoric has retained entirely critical of Palestinians and not at all critical of Israel, and Republicans have consistently supported draconian restrictions such as bans on BDS and some even introducing legislation banning referring to the region as Palestine. And weeks back, when public sentiment was not as anti-Israel as it is now, several Democrats voted for scrutiny to the Israeli military aid, whereas only one Republican did.

I am highly critical of Biden and I too am appalled that he's still running and that we don't have a better candidate who even ran in the primary. But it's far from truthful to say there is only a 1% difference between Biden and Trump, and even more dishonest and inaccurate to call Biden "99% Hitler", that's crazy talk and it serves only one purpose: to demotivate people and suppress voting.

There is a huge difference between these candidates. They will affect my daily life and your daily life and they will affect the whole world and they will affect Palestine.

Do you want a better candidate? Do you want to vote for an idealistic third-party candidate as a protest vote?

Support ranked choice voting first. Then, if you are in a state like Maine or Alaska that allows ranked choice for the president, vote for your ideal candidates and place Biden however low you want and then omit Trump entirely.

But if you do not have ranked choice in your state, especially if you live in a swing state, vote for Biden. And make sure to also join a movement that advances ranked choice, ideally Total Vote Runoff (TVR) as that is the best system for ranked choice.

[tobiasdrake]

I've never liked Hypocrisy Gotchas in political discourse. First, because it doesn't really matter. "He said we should kick all the illegal immigrants out but his company employs undocumented migrant labor!" Uh. Yeah. He's a fascist who hates minority races but enjoys slave labor. There may be a semantic contradiction between his words and his actions but there is no contradiction with his values.

The thing about the Right is that they don't really care about integrity of values or whatever. They're just making sound bytes. They want to cut taxes for the rich, restrict voting rights to the oligarchy, control women, reduce minorities to a slave labor class, etc. and they do not care what they have to say or do to make that happen.

They do not care if you catch them being inconsistent with their words. Because the words are just marketing. Their words are the juicy hamburger on the billboard that looks 10x better than what they're serving in the diner. Cool, you pointed out the hypocrisy. They're still gonna say it anyway.

But what really gets me about hypocrisy gotchas is that. Like.

So much of the Right's platform exists in opposition to the Left. Much of what they want is to claw back the victories that the Left has won. What we like, they hate. What we seek to create, they want to destroy. So on a certain level, trying to catch them in a Gotcha is, itself, a Gotcha back at us.

Because when we point and jeer at them for saying one thing and doing another, we're pointing and jeering at something we're supposed to be for.

"Republicans hate sex work but they routinely hire prostitutes! SHAAAAME!"

Uh. We're supposed to be pro-sex worker. Why are you shaming people for hiring sex work?

"Republicans want to kill abortions but this Republican got three abortions! SHAAAAME!!!"

Uh. We're supposed to be pro-abortion. Why are you shaming people for getting abortions?

"Republicans want to destroy LGBT rights but this Republican had an affair with a man! SHAAAAME!!!"

Uh. We're supposed to be pro-LGBT. Why are you shaming people for being gay?

Trying to score zingers off of Republican failures to uphold conservative values is not just politically inconsequential, it also necessarily accepts the premise that conservative values should be upheld. Shaming them for doing things they speak against casts those things they are doing as shameful.

I don't believe in going high when they go low. The Right is up to a lot of shady shit, and they should be called on it. But being gay or indulging in sex work or getting abortions, this stuff isn't shady. And we shouldn't treat it like it is, because then we're accepting their premise as a foundational belief for our argument.

In my opinion, speaking out against the very people we're supposed to support, potentially making people feel unsafe or unwelcome within the party, for the sake of scoring zingers against the enemy side? That's as much of a Hypocrisy Gotcha against us as it is against them.

And we're supposed to be the ones who actually mean what we say.

[phoenixyfriend]

Suggested topics to call your reps about today, 1/30/24!

I’ve been doing two subjects per call recently; one is almost always about the events in the middle east, and then one is domestic policy. I’m including a bit of verbiage you can use as basis for what you say (if you agree with me), for a few of these.

BOTH SENATE AND HOUSE:

Foreign Policy: Reinstate funding for UNRWA. While the claims made by Israel that employees of the relief agency were involved in Oct. 7th are troubling, this arm of the UN is currently providing food, water, shelter, and medical care to the 2.3 million displaced peoples of Gaza. It is especially disturbing and concerning that the many children of Gaza, who are already suffering due to this conflict, are now having this support revoked.

Warn Congress to reaaaaally think about whether a strong response to the incident in Jordan, currently attributed to an Iraqi group backed by Iran, if we're truly looking to avoid a wider regional war as claimed. There is already growing unrest in Yemen and the threat of another civil war, fire between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, and now the situation with the Islamic Resistance. Caution them against an overreaction of the kind that the US has a tendency towards.

FOR THE SENATE: Urge your senator to put their support behind Bernie Sanders and his motion to restrict funding to Israel until a humanitarian review of the IDF’s actions in Gaza has been completed.

FOR THE HOUSE: Urge your representative to put their support behind Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s petition for the US government to recognize the IDF’s actions in Gaza as ethnic cleansing and forced displacement, and put a stop to it.

Domestic Policy

House of Representatives:

Expansion of the child tax credit. The House of Representatives is currently voting on whether or not to expand the child tax credit that was instated during COVID-19. This credit offers a return on taxes for individuals with children, but currently does not apply to families that are too poor to qualify. During COVID, this tax credit was expanded to include those families, and child poverty fell to record lows, but as it was a temporary measure, those children are getting left behind again. Given the effectiveness the expansion of this tax regulation showed in the past, it would be a net positive for the country as a whole to codify it more permanently.

Other things coming up in the next week if you think your rep might be receptive:

H.R. 6976: Protect Our Communities from DUIs Act: Vote no. This act is discriminatory and enforces harsher penalties on immigrants than in legal citizens. While DUIs are a significant issue, enacting stronger guidelines on a small portion of the population that is already at risk from discriminatory police action is not a solution.

H.R. 6679: No Immigration Benefits for Hamas Terrorists Act - Vote no or dismiss if possible. Terrorism is already considered a reason to reject immigrants. This bill is pointless peacocking. You have better things to do with your time.

H.R. 6678: Consequences for Social Security Fraud Act - Vote no. This proposed act is discriminatory and enacts unduly harsh sentences against minorities. The system already has punishments for fraud; this specific act is unnecessary.

H.R. 5585: Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act - Are you sensing a pattern? It's discriminatory! Evading law enforcement on a motor vehicle is already illegal, you do not need to ADD IMMIGRATION PENALTIES.

Senate:

Abortion rights. Domestically, for the senate, push for abortion rights.

Specific things coming up in the next week if you think your Senator might be receptive:

H.R. 6914: Pregnant Students’ Rights Act - Call to ask that the resolution EXPLICITLY include abortion access, or otherwise vote against. This passed the house on strict party lines; other than a handful of abstentions, the vote was all republican for and all dems against. The text of the proposal is explicitly anti-abortion.

H.R. 6918: Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act - same as above, it was very partisan in the house vote, though less explicitly anti-abortion in the text. Nonetheless, it focuses explicitly on protecting funding to "pregnancy centers," which are often anti-choice and dedicated to pushing patients towards keeping a baby they don't want.

DOMESTIC POLICY, BOTH BRANCHES OF CONGRESS: Border policy is currently being hotly debated and negotiated. A very strong policy in favor of the Republican party is the status at the moment. Even some democrats are in favor of it due to small border communities being ill-equipped to handle large numbers of migrants, and states usually removed from the situation getting migrants bussed in from Texas despite telling Texas to knock it off. Despite some Republicans saying that they have gotten everything they could want out of the current deal, the party at large is refusing to pass it as the politics of the debate are more useful to the coming election than actually passing policy. This is also causing delays in passing the federal budget.

I... don't actually want to tell anyone WHAT to think of the border policy since I do not have any real knowledge on the budget impacts and resources dictating the actual problems (nor the racism or xenophobia, that part is obviously bullshit). I can recognize that too some degree, there is a genuine issue of manpower and budget restriction impacting the ability to house and process immigrants.

However, DREAMers are not being considered in the current deal, the delays in the deal are impacting the federal government and threatening a partial shutdown, and people are STILL getting hurt and even dying at the border.

I would focus on protection for DREAMers, chastising the Republicans for deliberately delaying the budget in order to use the border as a reelection premise instead of actually working on the policy they claim to want (emphasize that they are going to lose votes for focusing on reelection at the expense of their people), and protection for children, parents with those children, and nonviolent migrants in general.

[sexhaver]

i wanna prod at ur catholic confession post actually. like yes, murder and child rape is obviously bad and there is an inherent problem with how the catholic church shields abusers. but i think removing some of the restrictions of what a priest can or cannot say about a confession could cause some problems. like, for example, how a lot of priests considerer LGBT people to be child abusers/predatory! hypothetically if the cath church made it so preists could openly condemn confessions guilty of child abuse, and if the church considers identifying as LGBT as child abuse, then that could cause problems if someone confessed to IDing as gay/trans. or alternatively, what if someone confesses to killing a rapist/sexual abuser. a priest could use that confession to testify against them and get them imprisoned. is it ok to imprison people for murdering their abusers? idk, but i dont like the idea of the catholic church having that power having a blanket statement that priests cant mention ANY confessions makes it *slightly* more immune to corruption IMO. obviously i dont think this solution is perfect, but my alternative would be to dissolve the catholic church entirely, and i dont think thats happening anytime soon.

well as you point out there isn't really a good solution to this, and that is because the idea of confession is inherently dumb as fuck. everything the catholic church considers a sin falls into one of three categories:

failing to be pious enough (forgetting to pray, missing church, taking the Lord's name in vain). keeping these secret is fine because they aren't, like, actual crimes, and in small + devout enough communities there are definitely priests who would gossip about to their neighbors if not for the confessional seal.

really cool and good activities that are only an issue if you were raised to believe that they would send you to eternal neverending torture after death (jacking off, being gay, having premarital sex, getting/considering an abortion). these should obviously be kept secret because they're embarrassing and potentially dangerous. however, this is kind of a moot point, because any decent person (priest or otherwise) would understand this without needing a confessional seal making it official. so these need the seal to stop the average priest from tattling to a kid's parents when they confide in them.

actual literal crimes with prison sentences and everything (rape, murder, manslaughter, assault). you should not be telling anyone about these if you can help it. what the fuck guys. this isn't even an ethics thing, this is a "don't be fucking stupid" thing. if you murdered your abuser and got away with it, good for you! now shut the fuck up about it because murder is still illegal. is the guilt eating you alive so badly that you need absolution from God about it (cringe)? do what Protestants figured out centuries ago and cut the middleman out of the equation by talking to the J.C. directly via personal prayer! yes i am aware this is heretical. if you care about heresy more than getting caught you are stupid.

so looking at the three points above, the best argument in favor of confessional seal that i can formulate is "sure, it allows murderers and abusers to literally have their actions condoned by God with the explicit guarantee of never being held legally accountable or even changing their behavior (just say a few Hail Maries), but think about the consequences of removing it! priests would be even MORE bigoted than they already are! some of them might even GOSSIP!" like hm, okay, i hear you, you make some excellent points, i think we should nuke the Vatican