Supreme Court Watch

All the other crazy stuff we talk about. Politics, Science, News, the Kitchen, other hobbies.
User avatar
MJ2004
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 3:18 pm
Location: Boston
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 258 times

Supreme Court Watch

#106

Post by MJ2004 »

Ponchi, there are unlimited fresh new hells you haven’t yet thought of. For example:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by MJ2004 on Thu May 05, 2022 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Owendonovan United States of America
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2021 3:08 am
Location: NYC
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#107

Post by Owendonovan »

For me personally, as a married gay man, there is no compromise on my marriage, there never has been. The only person who should concern themselves with my marriage is my husband.
User avatar
texasniteowl
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 5:43 pm
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#108

Post by texasniteowl »

dmforever wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 4:22 am

I've read thoughts similar to yours and I'm curious about exactly what a compromise would look like in some of the issues that were mentioned above.

Kevin
I originally had a longer post that was up for a while but I ended up deleting it. In some ways I think compromise may have been the wrong word. Are some of these topics black/white or yes/no...maybe but not really. I feel like those of us who are kinda in the middle on some of these topics get excoriated by the extremes to such an extent that we give up talking about them. I think you can be pro-life as it applies to you and your life but there is no need to push your personal views on other people. I don't oppose same sex marriage because it doesn't affect me but neither am I going to go out and fight for it. I guess I'm trying to say, what is wrong with live and let live? Yeah, maybe that is simplistic and naive. But seriously...live and let live. The two vocal extremes are making that impossible. And maybe I'm just getting old too, but it's just been getting progressively worse, especially the last 22 years.
User avatar
ponchi101 Venezuela
Site Admin
Posts: 6887
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:40 pm
Location: New Macondo
Has thanked: 1849 times
Been thanked: 2285 times
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#109

Post by ponchi101 »

Because I find myself very much in TexasNiteOwl's camp, a few relatively random thoughts.
There are some issues that indeed are not negotiable, simply because of their nature. You, obviously, can't be "half married", and you can't get "half an abortion" because you can't be half-pregnant. But there are other things in which a median can be achieved.
The GENDER issue seems to be one of those. I just simply cannot believe or accept that there are 67 genders. I find that in that conversation conservatives do have a point. Left wing activists, to me, seem to be confused between "gender" and "sexuality", and this could have a biological definition: any combination with a Y chromosome makes you a male, all without a Y make you a female. Your sexuality? All yours. Your decision of who to love and/or who to have sex with is yours, as well as how to dress, but drop the 67 genders.
The imposition of labels is another one in which conservatives may have a point. Please, please, don't call me "latinx" or "latinex". That is not my language. Don't have the arrogance to think that you are "saving me" by changing the way my language works. Lots and lots of spanish words end in "o", but that does not mean a sexual imposition. Many words end in "a", and encompass groups. Simplest example: "persona" (person), ending in "a" but without a predisposed sexual indication.
From the right, their intransigence on any form of gun control is borderline childish, if not completely so. There are so many things that could be done (gun registration, mandatory safety training, for example) that would not infringe on the right that it could be discussed.
About abortion. The sole area that I think could be talked about could be a limit on how long into your gestation can you have an abortion. I would accept that the sole reasons for abortions in the third trimester should be medical; by the six month, if you are still unsure of whether you want or not to have a child, then the problem is certainly you. Anything else should be off the board of discussion. On same sex marriage, it is impossible for me to see anything else but absolute equality: marry whom you want, include them in your will, equal access to adoption, etc.
Of course, the GOP and conservatives are the party/mentality of "not minding your own business". An incredibly simple point is missed by them: you don't approve of abortion? Don't have one. Let's have a health system and a welfare system that will ensure that you can deliver and raise that child in the best possible way. But, of course, the GOP wants none of that. No abortion, no health care, no welfare. They do make it hard.

One thing is that, as TNO says, there is no discourse. Right now, it is all yelling. It is clear that all liberals and dems must be, rightly so, angry about this SCOTUS plan. But, when E. Warren yells that "we will not go back", she seems to be ignoring something: how? The rules in the USA are that the SCOTUS has the final say. Yes, you were cheated of a SCOTUS seat, and then Justice Kennedy basically committed treason, but that is spilt milk. You will not be able to do anything in Texas, in Florida, and in a bunch of states.
After the '20 election, I posted a small map, joking about what the USA would look like after it would split. Well, the joke is no longer funny. If this atmosphere in the USA continues, the chances that the country will be so divided that it may physically split are no longer zero. California is viable as an independent country. The entire west coast is. The northeastern portion too. If this atmosphere of non-discourse continues, in a few electoral cycles the chances of such a division of the USA will increase. The USA is nothing more than an experiment; all countries are. It has been successful for almost 250 years. Nothing guarantees that it will be so forever.
My god, it's full of stars!
dmforever
Posts: 788
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2020 7:16 pm
Has thanked: 411 times
Been thanked: 326 times

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#110

Post by dmforever »

texasniteowl wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 1:41 pm
dmforever wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 4:22 am

I've read thoughts similar to yours and I'm curious about exactly what a compromise would look like in some of the issues that were mentioned above.

Kevin
I originally had a longer post that was up for a while but I ended up deleting it. In some ways I think compromise may have been the wrong word. Are some of these topics black/white or yes/no...maybe but not really. I feel like those of us who are kinda in the middle on some of these topics get excoriated by the extremes to such an extent that we give up talking about them. I think you can be pro-life as it applies to you and your life but there is no need to push your personal views on other people. I don't oppose same sex marriage because it doesn't affect me but neither am I going to go out and fight for it. I guess I'm trying to say, what is wrong with live and let live? Yeah, maybe that is simplistic and naive. But seriously...live and let live. The two vocal extremes are making that impossible. And maybe I'm just getting old too, but it's just been getting progressively worse, especially the last 22 years.
Thanks for the examples. But if your point is live and let live, I would strongly suggest that it's not the right and the left that is against live and let live. It's the right only. That is the group that is pushing its views. Just because people react strongly to their loss of rights doesn't make them equal to the group that is taking them away.

And Ponchi, maybe you can see now why you and I have a slightly different view about this space that you have created, and which I'm very very thankful for.

Kevin
User avatar
ponchi101 Venezuela
Site Admin
Posts: 6887
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:40 pm
Location: New Macondo
Has thanked: 1849 times
Been thanked: 2285 times
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#111

Post by ponchi101 »

dmforever wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 3:16 pm ...

Thanks for the examples. But if your point is live and let live, I would strongly suggest that it's not the right and the left that is against live and let live. It's the right only. That is the group that is pushing its views. Just because people react strongly to their loss of rights doesn't make them equal to the group that is taking them away.

And Ponchi, maybe you can see now why you and I have a slightly different view about this space that you have created, and which I'm very very thankful for.

Kevin
But, the fact that we have differences (and I find them small) does not mean that I don't read you and think about what you write with a critical mind, not dismissing you at once.
Just to make it clear: I can't imagine compromises regarding abortion, other than that 3rd trimester caveat. For me, even if a woman were to decide that abortion will be her preferred choice for family planning, I would still support her.
LGBTQ rights? Consenting adults who, when sex is involved, do so behind closed doors (the same request I have from heterosexual couples). So completely none my business, except for the fact that I support them all. Your body, your life, your love. All should have access to the means to achieve what makes them happy.
I will stop now, to let other opinions come in.
My god, it's full of stars!
dmforever
Posts: 788
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2020 7:16 pm
Has thanked: 411 times
Been thanked: 326 times

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#112

Post by dmforever »

ponchi101 wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 3:06 pm Because I find myself very much in TexasNiteOwl's camp, a few relatively random thoughts.
There are some issues that indeed are not negotiable, simply because of their nature. You, obviously, can't be "half married", and you can't get "half an abortion" because you can't be half-pregnant. But there are other things in which a median can be achieved.
The GENDER issue seems to be one of those. I just simply cannot believe or accept that there are 67 genders. I find that in that conversation conservatives do have a point. Left wing activists, to me, seem to be confused between "gender" and "sexuality", and this could have a biological definition: any combination with a Y chromosome makes you a male, all without a Y make you a female. Your sexuality? All yours. Your decision of who to love and/or who to have sex with is yours, as well as how to dress, but drop the 67 genders.
The imposition of labels is another one in which conservatives may have a point. Please, please, don't call me "latinx" or "latinex". That is not my language. Don't have the arrogance to think that you are "saving me" by changing the way my language works. Lots and lots of spanish words end in "o", but that does not mean a sexual imposition. Many words end in "a", and encompass groups. Simplest example: "persona" (person), ending in "a" but without a predisposed sexual indication.
From the right, their intransigence on any form of gun control is borderline childish, if not completely so. There are so many things that could be done (gun registration, mandatory safety training, for example) that would not infringe on the right that it could be discussed.
About abortion. The sole area that I think could be talked about could be a limit on how long into your gestation can you have an abortion. I would accept that the sole reasons for abortions in the third trimester should be medical; by the six month, if you are still unsure of whether you want or not to have a child, then the problem is certainly you. Anything else should be off the board of discussion. On same sex marriage, it is impossible for me to see anything else but absolute equality: marry whom you want, include them in your will, equal access to adoption, etc.
Of course, the GOP and conservatives are the party/mentality of "not minding your own business". An incredibly simple point is missed my them: you don't approve of abortion? Don't have one. Let's have a health system and a welfare system that will ensure that you can deliver and raise that child in the best possible way. But, of course, the GOP wants none of that. No abortion, no health care, no welfare. They do make it hard.

One thing is that, as TNO says, there is no discourse. Right now, it is all yelling. It is clear that all liberals and dems must be, rightly so, angry about this SCOTUS plan. But, when E. Warren yells that "we will not go back", she seems to be ignoring something: how? The rules in the USA are that the SCOTUS has the final say. Yes, you were cheated of a SCOTUS seat, and then Justice Kennedy basically committed treason, but that is spilt milk. You will not be able to do anything in Texas, in Florida, and in a bunch of states.
After the '20 election, I posted a small map, joking about what the USA would look like after it would split. Well, the joke is no longer funny. If this atmosphere in the USA continues, the chances that the country will be so divided that it may physically split are no longer zero. California is viable as an independent country. The entire west coast is. The northeastern portion too. If this atmosphere of non-discourse continues, in a few electoral cycles the chances of such a division of the USA will increase. The USA is nothing more than an experiment; all countries are. It has been successful for almost 250 years. Nothing guarantees that it will be so forever.
Your view of gender as being 100% biological is different from how other people view it, which is a combination of biology and psychology. They aren't confused. The just take more than biology into account. Sexuality is based on who you are attracted to. Gender is how you feel about yourself. There are many cultures that have had more than 2 genders for millennia. It's not a new concept at all.

I actually used to think that gender was what was between a person's legs, or in their chromosomes, but I found that talking to people or reading about their experiences changed my mind. And a good example is a transgender person. If that person's sexuality were solely based on biology, why would they want to transition? It's because their gender feels wrong to them. How they feel is a part of their gender identity. It's a part of a cisgendered person's gender identity too. It's just that we don't realize it, because we've never had to examine it.

The use of "latinx" began in the Latin community. I totally get not wanting people outside your group labeling you though. That really sucks. Also, I recently talked to a Colombian student of mine who told me that in Colombia at least, people are starting to use the letter "e" to degender some gendered nouns. I don't remember if she said that they use them for adjectives too. She wasn't saying that every noun was going to now end in "e". It was more about nouns for people.

And I agree that there can be compromise in terms of abortion after a set period of time. You chose after 6 months. Don't most abortions either happen before that time, or happen after that time only because there are health risks for the woman, or the fetus has severe problems which will make their life horrible? I don't think most right to choose people would only advocate for abortion up until birth, but I don't think that's the option that's being offered them.

Thanks again for this space.

Kevin
Last edited by dmforever on Thu May 05, 2022 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
dmforever
Posts: 788
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2020 7:16 pm
Has thanked: 411 times
Been thanked: 326 times

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#113

Post by dmforever »

ponchi101 wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 3:27 pm
dmforever wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 3:16 pm ...

Thanks for the examples. But if your point is live and let live, I would strongly suggest that it's not the right and the left that is against live and let live. It's the right only. That is the group that is pushing its views. Just because people react strongly to their loss of rights doesn't make them equal to the group that is taking them away.

And Ponchi, maybe you can see now why you and I have a slightly different view about this space that you have created, and which I'm very very thankful for.

Kevin
But, the fact that we have differences (and I find them small) does not mean that I don't read you and think about what you write with a critical mind, not dismissing you at once.
Just to make it clear: I can't imagine compromises regarding abortion, other than that 3rd trimester caveat. For me, even if a woman were to decide that abortion will be her preferred choice for family planning, I would still support her.
LGBTQ rights? Consenting adults who, when sex is involved, do so behind closed doors (the same request I have from heterosexual couples). So completely none my business, except for the fact that I support them all. Your body, your life, your love. All should have access to the means to achieve what makes them happy.
I will stop now, to let other opinions come in.
I agree. I also read your posts as well and do my best to think them through. I think my point wasn't clear though. Sorry about that. I wasn't referring to you. I was just pointing out that I might perceive this space differently than you, referring back to our discussion a while ago. I need to be more specific. My bad.

Kevin
User avatar
ponchi101 Venezuela
Site Admin
Posts: 6887
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:40 pm
Location: New Macondo
Has thanked: 1849 times
Been thanked: 2285 times
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#114

Post by ponchi101 »

dmforever wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 3:44 pm ...

The use of "latinx" began in the Latin community. I totally get not wanting people outside your group labeling you though. That really sucks. Also, I recently talked to a Colombian student of mine who told me that in Colombia at least, people are starting to use the letter "e" to degender some gendered nouns. I don't remember if she said that they use them for adjectives too. She wasn't saying that every noun was going to now end in "e". It was more about nouns for people.

...

Kevin
I will only comment on this one.
Colombia indeed is following some trends. For example, the current Mayor of Bogota is an openly gay woman, with a well known partner. I don't know if they are married (I am not sure if Colombia finally legalized same sex marriage) but she is open about it.
That does not mean that ALL society has transitioned to an acceptance of LGBTQ. Colombia is still a very "conservative" society. In reality, they are the typical hypocritical bunch, being conservative in public and very, very liberal in their private lives (mistresses? You bet it is accepted).
About nouns. The language has a lot nouns that end in E, and are gender neutral: presidente, gerente, alcalde come easily to mind. My peeve is the imposition, and on that, I gather that older people (like me) simply refuse the change. Our language really does not use X too much, and it sounds very odd. And, to me, changing the o's and a's is trivial in relation to the other real gender problems we have. Like giving you an aspirin to treat leukemia.
The gender issue is still very different due to culture. It would take too long to put down my ideas. Will, once again, stop here.
My god, it's full of stars!
dmforever
Posts: 788
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2020 7:16 pm
Has thanked: 411 times
Been thanked: 326 times

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#115

Post by dmforever »

ponchi101 wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 4:17 pm
dmforever wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 3:44 pm ...

The use of "latinx" began in the Latin community. I totally get not wanting people outside your group labeling you though. That really sucks. Also, I recently talked to a Colombian student of mine who told me that in Colombia at least, people are starting to use the letter "e" to degender some gendered nouns. I don't remember if she said that they use them for adjectives too. She wasn't saying that every noun was going to now end in "e". It was more about nouns for people.

...

Kevin
I will only comment on this one.
Colombia indeed is following some trends. For example, the current Mayor of Bogota is an openly gay woman, with a well known partner. I don't know if they are married (I am not sure if Colombia finally legalized same sex marriage) but she is open about it.
That does not mean that ALL society has transitioned to an acceptance of LGBTQ. Colombia is still a very "conservative" society. In reality, they are the typical hypocritical bunch, being conservative in public and very, very liberal in their private lives (mistresses? You bet it is accepted).
About nouns. The language has a lot nouns that end in E, and are gender neutral: presidente, gerente, alcalde come easily to mind. My peeve is the imposition, and on that, I gather that older people (like me) simply refuse the change. Our language really does not use X too much, and it sounds very odd. And, to me, changing the o's and a's is trivial in relation to the other real gender problems we have. Like giving you an aspirin to treat leukemia.
The gender issue is still very different due to culture. It would take too long to put down my ideas. Will, once again, stop here.
Thanks :) Just to be clear, she meant using "e" like "latine" instead of latino or latina so as to include everyone. And I totally agree that there are much larger gender issues in most places. Perhaps this focus on language happens because it's symbolic and a simple fix to make, if people want to make that change.

Kevin
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 10396
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 2648 times
Been thanked: 1454 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#116

Post by ti-amie »

“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
ponchi101 Venezuela
Site Admin
Posts: 6887
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:40 pm
Location: New Macondo
Has thanked: 1849 times
Been thanked: 2285 times
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court Watch

#117

Post by ponchi101 »

But this is tied to the Tweet you posted in the Politics topic about Barry Goldwater saying what would happen when the religious nuts would take control over the GOP. They don't care about women; they care about some ridiculous concept of "a soul". Never mind that the woman's soul will be expedited to hell after she dies from a botched abortion, if you believe their nonsense.
My god, it's full of stars!
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 1 guest