@thatgirl, haha yes "back with a new LP? how is this just released if I already own a shirt that says howygl&lgwygi? am I... from the future"
Haha, aw, thank you <3 this political victory just meant a lot to me
Hahaha that reminds me: when I was in undergrad, there was a vote to repeal anti-discrimination laws for LBGT people which applied only in my (entirely college-oriented) city but not my (southern swing) state, popularized by the outrageous assertion that men could hypothetically claim they were women and sneak into women's bathrooms and molest children. When the motion failed to pass, this uber-conservative d-bag I had class with posted this deliciously intellectually dishonest facebook status: "Well, guess our city decided to defend the rights of PEDOPHILES today then." (He was also quite fond of referring to Obama as the antichrist. #notracist) He would later go on to fail math classes and torpedo his dreams of becoming an engineer, and I would go on to laugh
@Jess Mess, you're amazing, and fwiw I totally got what you meant the first time and laughed at "...the laws of time and space"
@hallelujah and liverwortlaura and pistolpackingmama, <3<3<3<3<3
also @ ppm, "So. This is not, to me, really an American Democracy Issue. It is a Global Women's Health And Human Rights Issue" neatly sums up my stance on the issue in two lines. Good call.
@theinvisiblecunt my dumb ass wrote "law of rule" TWICE and repeatedly wrote about abortion being "legal" instead of "accessible" but I guess that is what happens when you skip lunch to argue on the internet
No, I said that you were taking it too seriously, not "double down and be ten times as pedantic and humorless and over-literal."
I'm having a formal debate with a republican. When it's my turn to speak, I calmly make my argument. When it's his turn to speak, he gets up, walks over, and punches me in the face. The next time it's my turn to speak, I punch him back, and you intervene to say "WHOA WHOA WHOA SO THE DEMS ARE JUST GONNA THROW THE DEBATE RULES OUT THE WINDOW HERE THEN? I thought you were better than him!!!" It's not an elegant analogy, but my point is: the rules are not in effect if you are only holding one side to the rules. If one side is playing by the rules, the other side isn't, and nobody will ever intervene on behalf of the dignity of the rules because the two sides encompass the entire ruling party, then the rule-abiding side isn't preserving the dignity of the debate, it is only handicapping itself in a fight that will be unfair no matter what they do.
Edit to add: I think that any time legislation that would hurt women is blocked, it is something to celebrate. The republicans wouldn't have stopped trying to pass anti-woman abortion laws no matter what we did. That is what I am saying.
Re: "a tactic that is unfair and democratic:" filibustering is legal, it happens all the time, and the Senate's filibuster reform bill recently failed. If it is here to stay and being used, I am not willing to let only my opponents use it against me simply so I can say I am more high-minded while less advantaged citizens suffer as a result. This ties into your moan about "the credo of every autocrat throughout history:" if the dems play minorly dirty like I want to them to by engaging in this filibuster, the end result is that abortion remains legal. If the dems had said "no no I would never engage in a filibuster, I Am Taking The High Road," then women who would have chosen abortion will be abused by their partners (because domestic abuse often increases or begins during pregnancy), drop out of high school and college, end up on welfare, and generally suffer but at least you will get to say your party doesn't filibuster.
Re: "they wouldn't have been able to make quorum:" you are pedantically dissecting a rhetorical point. Think about it harder and don't be snarkily dismissive.
Re: "law of rule:" the law of rule is built on sand if one party regularly tramples it.
I'm sorry, I'm being pretty mean but basically what I am saying is that I wouldn't care if the Civil Rights Act was passed because of civil disobedience or because the Black Panthers found and stabbed every racist in congress because sometimes, results mean more than procedure.
Nah nope I find it inspiring and awesome that women in Texas have not had their access to abortion further restricted, and I find it inspiring and awesome to see democratic elected officials fighting for my rights exactly as hard as the other side fights to erode them.
edit: I do understand how, for a man, the airy philosophical side of this battle--which is essentially built on sand because one side will regularly ignore its supposed honor at every possible opportunity to do so and gain a political victory--is just as important as the part that significantly affects real women's lives, though.
Right okay but see, this impulse toward being the Ever-Morally Upright and High-Minded Party is the reason that democrats never get shit done and I will side with someone who takes advantage of the procedural quirks that permit filibustering in order to defend MY rights over someone who says "Sorry, ladies, but if you can't defend your precious little abortion clinics against Republicans who are fighting dirty WITHOUT getting any mud on you then I guess it's not REALLY a victory" every single time
I wasn't cheering Davis on against a disgusting, regressive law out of some sort of high-minded airy devotion to Democracy, I was doing it because she was defending women's rights
And, okay, I honestly find it a little insulting that you and jfruh, both males iirc, are able to say "sorry this wasn't a real victory because the thing that matters here isn't whether women have access to abortions, it's whether this High-Minded Ideal is treated as sacred... by the democrats, even when republicans tread all over it, all the time."