The Snitch State
October 3, 2024 10:22 AM Subscribe
Across the nation, Republican-controlled state legislatures and conservative activists have passed bills and embraced legal strategies that encourage Americans to monitor one another’s behavior and report their friends, family members, and neighbors to the authorities. [...] Republican legislators in Texas have proposed numerous additional restrictions since Roe v. Wade was overturned, including bills that would punish employers who help their workers get abortions, outlaw abortion funds that help women seek the procedure in another state, and circumvent local district attorneys who refuse to criminally prosecute abortion providers. Some proposed measures would restrict access to contraception. One would criminalize speech by making it illegal to provide “information on how to obtain an abortion-inducing drug” and forcing internet providers in Texas to censor such information. [...] As of this writing, no one has yet been successfully sued under Texas’s bounty law, and other measures that seek to turn citizens into informants have faced challenges in court. (If reelected, former President Donald Trump is likely to appoint more federal judges who would look favorably upon such measures.) But these policies have chilling effects whether or not they are strictly enforced. The mere threat of having one’s privacy invaded and one’s life potentially destroyed is sufficient to shape people’s speech and behavior. American history shows us where this could lead."The Right-Wing Plan to Make Everyone an Informant" by Adam Serwer for The Atlantic [ungated, archive]
AP: Funds are cutting aid for women seeking abortions as costs rise
TNR: How Abortion Funds Are Coping With Their Election-Year Money Crunch
VF: Yes, JD Vance Lied About Abortion, And No, You Shouldn’t Trust Anything He or Donald Trump Says About Reproductive Rights
Meanwhile, in Florida, the unqualified (and youngest) Trump appointee Kathryn Mizelle declares the 160-year-old False Claims Act's qui tam provision unconstitutional -- a longstanding legal principle which allows private citizen whistleblowers to report fraud against the government and recover a percentage of the recovered funds, which have regularly amounted to over $1 billion annually.
... means these policies are terrorism.
Push hard enough and, eventually, the equally easy ability to know where these people live and work will inspire reprisals. The US right seems to proceed thinking that people will remain docile, peaceful and disengaged forever.
posted by ryanshepard at 10:50 AM on October 3 [9 favorites]
Push hard enough and, eventually, the equally easy ability to know where these people live and work will inspire reprisals. The US right seems to proceed thinking that people will remain docile, peaceful and disengaged forever.
posted by ryanshepard at 10:50 AM on October 3 [9 favorites]
It's a Distributed Stasi Architecture. Which is apparently OK since there's not a master card file back at headquarters.
posted by wierdo at 10:53 AM on October 3 [23 favorites]
posted by wierdo at 10:53 AM on October 3 [23 favorites]
That we know of.
posted by gottabefunky at 11:08 AM on October 3 [8 favorites]
posted by gottabefunky at 11:08 AM on October 3 [8 favorites]
The future is begging us to make sure Trump loses, and keeps on losing.
Whatever your focus, whatever your grievance, whatever issue you hold most important. There is literally no corner of the world or aspect of human life that would not be made worse by a Trump presidency.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 11:09 AM on October 3 [53 favorites]
Whatever your focus, whatever your grievance, whatever issue you hold most important. There is literally no corner of the world or aspect of human life that would not be made worse by a Trump presidency.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 11:09 AM on October 3 [53 favorites]
so Orwell just mis-named his book? it was supposed to be 2024 not 1984.
posted by supermedusa at 11:17 AM on October 3 [8 favorites]
posted by supermedusa at 11:17 AM on October 3 [8 favorites]
As absolutely horrifying as I find the "Stasi lite" nature of this, the leap to say "fine, the government can't, but they can" is awful and clever. Then again Citizen's Vigilance Committees aren't anything new. It taps into the same thing in people that creates HOA monsters. And of course the nightmare reality is how much "Stasi lite" tends to grow into "Stasi heavy".
I miss when all we usually had to worry about was the nosy HOA president.
posted by drewbage1847 at 11:21 AM on October 3 [8 favorites]
I miss when all we usually had to worry about was the nosy HOA president.
posted by drewbage1847 at 11:21 AM on October 3 [8 favorites]
It's the keeps on losing part that has me feeling especially frustrated and depressed. He already lost once, threw a tantrum, tried to overthrow the government, and stole a bunch of nuclear secrets on his way out the door.
Why do Republicans get to play for keeps while Democrats can only patiently wait four years for the next existential crisis election? How come we're all fucked if Trump wins again, when Trump and his enablers clearly weren't even remotely fucked when Biden assumed office in 2021?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:22 AM on October 3 [37 favorites]
Why do Republicans get to play for keeps while Democrats can only patiently wait four years for the next existential crisis election? How come we're all fucked if Trump wins again, when Trump and his enablers clearly weren't even remotely fucked when Biden assumed office in 2021?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:22 AM on October 3 [37 favorites]
I think because Biden and other conventional politicians aren't trying to break the system. Even as much as I disliked the Bush's, Reagan and even Nixon, they still seemed to be trying to keep the system operating.
posted by drewbage1847 at 11:24 AM on October 3 [8 favorites]
posted by drewbage1847 at 11:24 AM on October 3 [8 favorites]
I disliked the Bush's, Reagan and even Nixon, they still seemed to be trying to keep the system operating
I find this kind of hard to swallow given how much 'the system' keeps helping Trump. Laws barely apply to guys like him, according to the system.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:54 AM on October 3 [14 favorites]
I find this kind of hard to swallow given how much 'the system' keeps helping Trump. Laws barely apply to guys like him, according to the system.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:54 AM on October 3 [14 favorites]
this sounds sooo familiar... I read about it here :
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/guerin/1938/10/fascism.htm
https://www.amazon.com/Fascism-Big-Business-Daniel-Guerin/dp/0873488784
posted by gkr at 12:04 PM on October 3 [4 favorites]
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/guerin/1938/10/fascism.htm
https://www.amazon.com/Fascism-Big-Business-Daniel-Guerin/dp/0873488784
posted by gkr at 12:04 PM on October 3 [4 favorites]
yeah, I think maybe it looks like Reagan et.al., weren't trying to break the system because they were not in a position to do so. they were like a midwife, a John the Baptist, playing a very long game to create the moment in which it would be possible to break that system. and now we are soaking in it.
posted by supermedusa at 12:07 PM on October 3 [18 favorites]
posted by supermedusa at 12:07 PM on October 3 [18 favorites]
Yeah, Reagan would've done this if the groundwork was where it is today; dunno about Bush Sr., but I suspect W was more of a willing pawn (Trump is stupid, but W is just an idiot).
The far-right has been playing a long game for decades.
The reason they're not fucked when they lose is that they're exploiting every loophole trying to destroy the system, and carefully hiding behind the pieces of the system that shield them. It's the paradox of tolerance--the system won't tolerate people going outside the system to destroy it (i.e., violent overthrow), but does tolerate people working within the system trying to destroy it.
(Also, Biden nominated a spineless fuck named Garland.)
posted by Ickster at 12:14 PM on October 3 [15 favorites]
The far-right has been playing a long game for decades.
The reason they're not fucked when they lose is that they're exploiting every loophole trying to destroy the system, and carefully hiding behind the pieces of the system that shield them. It's the paradox of tolerance--the system won't tolerate people going outside the system to destroy it (i.e., violent overthrow), but does tolerate people working within the system trying to destroy it.
(Also, Biden nominated a spineless fuck named Garland.)
posted by Ickster at 12:14 PM on October 3 [15 favorites]
"Thanks for a country where nobody's allowed to mind their own business. Thanks for a nation of finks."
--William S. Burroughs, "Thanksgiving Prayer"
posted by The Ardship of Cambry at 12:14 PM on October 3 [27 favorites]
--William S. Burroughs, "Thanksgiving Prayer"
posted by The Ardship of Cambry at 12:14 PM on October 3 [27 favorites]
Republican legislators in Texas have proposed numerous additional restrictions since Roe v. Wade was overturned
I got an e-mail recently that a notable Off-Broadway theatre is producing the premiere of a two-woman play called "Blood Of The Lamb":
I got an e-mail recently that a notable Off-Broadway theatre is producing the premiere of a two-woman play called "Blood Of The Lamb":
A pregnant woman finds herself detained in a Texas airport with an unexpected adversary: a court appointed attorney assigned to represent her baby.posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 12:22 PM on October 3 [8 favorites]
Why do Republicans get to play for keeps while Democrats can only patiently wait four years for the next existential crisis election? How come we're all fucked if Trump wins again, when Trump and his enablers clearly weren't even remotely fucked when Biden assumed office in 2021?
Because Republicans are willing to shoot the hostage and their voters reward them when they threaten to do it and if/when they actually do shoot it. If overthrowing democracy lets them tell everyone what to do and what to believe they'll fucking do it.
So we end up with a situation where we effectively have a center-right party trying to be both conservators of the system and the status quo along with some incremental improvements while the other party is a bunch of reactionary arsonists who don't care how much shit hits the fan, as long as they're the feudal lords of said shit covered populace. Republicans are really difficult to stop because the status quo defense parts pisses off a lot of big tent allies. It's hard to keep a coalition together when you're upholding a lot of the systems that keep the people you want to vote for you oppressed.
What we're living though is a multicultural electorate starting to dismantle the power structures of a long entrenched white supremacist society and a white electorate desperate to keep their place in the hierarchy because without at least an imaginary society wide consensus that the biggest failure of a white person is still better than any Black person they have nothing.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:25 PM on October 3 [37 favorites]
Because Republicans are willing to shoot the hostage and their voters reward them when they threaten to do it and if/when they actually do shoot it. If overthrowing democracy lets them tell everyone what to do and what to believe they'll fucking do it.
So we end up with a situation where we effectively have a center-right party trying to be both conservators of the system and the status quo along with some incremental improvements while the other party is a bunch of reactionary arsonists who don't care how much shit hits the fan, as long as they're the feudal lords of said shit covered populace. Republicans are really difficult to stop because the status quo defense parts pisses off a lot of big tent allies. It's hard to keep a coalition together when you're upholding a lot of the systems that keep the people you want to vote for you oppressed.
What we're living though is a multicultural electorate starting to dismantle the power structures of a long entrenched white supremacist society and a white electorate desperate to keep their place in the hierarchy because without at least an imaginary society wide consensus that the biggest failure of a white person is still better than any Black person they have nothing.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:25 PM on October 3 [37 favorites]
I find this kind of hard to swallow given how much 'the system' keeps helping Trump. Laws barely apply to guys like him, according to the system.
The problem is the norm that we don't prosecute politicians except for the most egregious cases for fear of mutually assured destruction has long been a feature not a bug of our political system.
The cause of that becoming a problem is one side is basically throwing off any yoke of accountability. Deny deny deny. No shame, no apologies, no contrition, no problem. When the founders were writing about who could be President they didn't put a lot of guardrails in because the founders didn't think the electorate would ever be stupid enough to elect such a charlatan like Trump.
They were wrong.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:29 PM on October 3 [12 favorites]
The problem is the norm that we don't prosecute politicians except for the most egregious cases for fear of mutually assured destruction has long been a feature not a bug of our political system.
The cause of that becoming a problem is one side is basically throwing off any yoke of accountability. Deny deny deny. No shame, no apologies, no contrition, no problem. When the founders were writing about who could be President they didn't put a lot of guardrails in because the founders didn't think the electorate would ever be stupid enough to elect such a charlatan like Trump.
They were wrong.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:29 PM on October 3 [12 favorites]
When the founders were writing about who could be President they didn't put a lot of guardrails in because the founders didn't think the electorate would ever be stupid enough to elect such a charlatan like Trump.
Yes they did, which is why they put in the Electoral College, which Hamilton specifically cites and being the institution that would stop a popular charlatan like Trump. Except it didn't, because the Founders also didn't take political parties into account, and here we are.
If for no other reason than failing at the specific task it was designed for, the Electoral College needs to go.
posted by Gelatin at 12:34 PM on October 3 [18 favorites]
Yes they did, which is why they put in the Electoral College, which Hamilton specifically cites and being the institution that would stop a popular charlatan like Trump. Except it didn't, because the Founders also didn't take political parties into account, and here we are.
If for no other reason than failing at the specific task it was designed for, the Electoral College needs to go.
posted by Gelatin at 12:34 PM on October 3 [18 favorites]
I disagree. The Electoral College was put in place to appease slave states that they would still have enough power to be slave states.
We do agree the Electoral College needs to go. It's anti-democratic bullshit.
posted by mcstayinskool at 12:38 PM on October 3 [29 favorites]
We do agree the Electoral College needs to go. It's anti-democratic bullshit.
posted by mcstayinskool at 12:38 PM on October 3 [29 favorites]
If for no other reason than failing at the specific task it was designed for, the Electoral College needs to go.
The task of the Electoral College was to secure the union being created by making sure the slave states had a negotiated portion of its slave population counted towards its total federal political power.
If the EC wasn't a thing the 3/5ths compromise is moot. Without the 3/5ths compromise Virginia and the Carolinas never ratify the constitution and the union falls apart.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:39 PM on October 3 [6 favorites]
The task of the Electoral College was to secure the union being created by making sure the slave states had a negotiated portion of its slave population counted towards its total federal political power.
If the EC wasn't a thing the 3/5ths compromise is moot. Without the 3/5ths compromise Virginia and the Carolinas never ratify the constitution and the union falls apart.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:39 PM on October 3 [6 favorites]
Why do Republicans get to play for keeps while Democrats can only patiently wait four years for the next existential crisis election? How come we're all fucked if Trump wins again, when Trump and his enablers clearly weren't even remotely fucked when Biden assumed office in 2021?
Same reason killing terrorists doesn't work except maybe, if you're lucky, temporarily. Asymmetric warfare is a thorny thing. If you go after them the same way they come after you, the hydra just sprouts more heads.
The two effective means of dealing with it are normally money and money. You either improve material conditions for the foot soldiers so few are willing to suffer for the cause or you cut off the ideological money that funds them by impoverishing and/or jailing their wealthy backers.
MAGA doesn't quite fit the usual mold since the foot soldiers are mostly comfortable in a material sense, they're just fed a constant diet of fear that makes them feel like they're in a more precarious situation than they really are. The economy is always moments away from total collapse. Criminals are invading from the cities or across borders and will be taking everything they have by force.
In the former case it isn't an entirely irrational fear, given that the system encourages people to be leveraged up to their eyeballs so it doesn't take long for the house of cards to come crashing down, but their information diet radically overstates both the chance and the ultimate impact. (They believe that a major financial setback means living on the street, when in reality it means declaring bankruptcy and having fewer toys and vacations for a short while. Being strategic about it like the rich are makes it a near non event as far as the day to day goes. It's the late payments that get you, not telling the lenders to shove their debt down their fucking throat through legal process.)
posted by wierdo at 12:40 PM on October 3 [8 favorites]
Same reason killing terrorists doesn't work except maybe, if you're lucky, temporarily. Asymmetric warfare is a thorny thing. If you go after them the same way they come after you, the hydra just sprouts more heads.
The two effective means of dealing with it are normally money and money. You either improve material conditions for the foot soldiers so few are willing to suffer for the cause or you cut off the ideological money that funds them by impoverishing and/or jailing their wealthy backers.
MAGA doesn't quite fit the usual mold since the foot soldiers are mostly comfortable in a material sense, they're just fed a constant diet of fear that makes them feel like they're in a more precarious situation than they really are. The economy is always moments away from total collapse. Criminals are invading from the cities or across borders and will be taking everything they have by force.
In the former case it isn't an entirely irrational fear, given that the system encourages people to be leveraged up to their eyeballs so it doesn't take long for the house of cards to come crashing down, but their information diet radically overstates both the chance and the ultimate impact. (They believe that a major financial setback means living on the street, when in reality it means declaring bankruptcy and having fewer toys and vacations for a short while. Being strategic about it like the rich are makes it a near non event as far as the day to day goes. It's the late payments that get you, not telling the lenders to shove their debt down their fucking throat through legal process.)
posted by wierdo at 12:40 PM on October 3 [8 favorites]
Has anything become of the federal court striking down California's gun control legislation that was deliberately modeled after Texas' abortion law?
I realize part of passing it was to expose the hypocrisy, but it's still one of those things where federal courts were awfully quick to step in and prevent it from going into effect while letting the law in Texas stand.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:41 PM on October 3 [5 favorites]
I realize part of passing it was to expose the hypocrisy, but it's still one of those things where federal courts were awfully quick to step in and prevent it from going into effect while letting the law in Texas stand.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:41 PM on October 3 [5 favorites]
Has anything become of the federal court striking down California's gun control legislation that was deliberately modeled after Texas' abortion law?A federalist stooge has declared qui tam suits unconstitutional by literally reading from a dissent from
*By interesting I mean horrifying
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:48 PM on October 3 [6 favorites]
Why do Republicans get to play for keeps while Democrats can only patiently wait four years for the next existential crisis election? How come we're all fucked if Trump wins again, when Trump and his enablers clearly weren't even remotely fucked when Biden assumed office in 2021?
Swing states, the inherent anti-democratic (small d) nature of the constitution, the inherent anti-Democratic (big D) bias of the Senate, the ruling class' desire to remain in power regardless of which party wins an election, voter apathy and ignorance, gerrymandering, incumbency advantage, the Supreme Court, and of course racism/sexism etc...
posted by Glibpaxman at 12:58 PM on October 3 [8 favorites]
Swing states, the inherent anti-democratic (small d) nature of the constitution, the inherent anti-Democratic (big D) bias of the Senate, the ruling class' desire to remain in power regardless of which party wins an election, voter apathy and ignorance, gerrymandering, incumbency advantage, the Supreme Court, and of course racism/sexism etc...
posted by Glibpaxman at 12:58 PM on October 3 [8 favorites]
The Snitch State
Time to put the "narc" epithet back in regular play.
posted by Greg_Ace at 2:03 PM on October 3 [3 favorites]
Time to put the "narc" epithet back in regular play.
posted by Greg_Ace at 2:03 PM on October 3 [3 favorites]
What we're living though is a multicultural electorate starting to dismantle the power structures of a long entrenched white supremacist society and a white electorate desperate to keep their place in the hierarchy because without at least an imaginary society wide consensus that the biggest failure of a white person is still better than any Black person they have nothing.Your Childhood Pet Rock, (1) that's the kind of optimistic (really!) take that I'd like to believe, and (2) I know that the most violent spasms of oppression by the powerful come when they are, or fear that they are, on the brink of losing their power, but … do you think that this is really true? I know we're certainly in an age where the multicultural electorate is trying to do this, but I don't see, globally or in the US, clear evidence that these efforts are succeeding in any systematic way. Much as I hate to invoke his name in this context, perhaps we are in a Churchillian "end of the beginning?"
posted by It is regrettable that at 2:18 PM on October 3 [4 favorites]
I disagree with the responses to "why does it only work for Trump?"
You hit them, hard, and they don't stand back up. Milo didn't stand back up, the Proud Boys didn't stand back up, the various lawyers of the coup plot didn't stand back up, let alone sprout additional heads. You have to ATTACK, you have to actually go after them because they will not just re-dissolve into the mass of humanity that is the electorate at large. There's no point at which they see the light and repent, they must be defeated. Losing at the ballot box isn't defeat to them.
Part of this is attacking SCOTUS so we stop losing everything by extra-legislative means (convictions, laws, rights, etc). Not regulating, not reforming: attacking. Corruption investigations by any avenue, yanking security money for the republican judges, using Art.3 "Good Behavior" requirements like a cudgel.
The stuff coming out of Jack Smith is a great example. Oh, we can't run this in court oh great and mighty SCOTUS? How about fuck you we'll play in the papers.
posted by Slackermagee at 2:24 PM on October 3 [33 favorites]
You hit them, hard, and they don't stand back up. Milo didn't stand back up, the Proud Boys didn't stand back up, the various lawyers of the coup plot didn't stand back up, let alone sprout additional heads. You have to ATTACK, you have to actually go after them because they will not just re-dissolve into the mass of humanity that is the electorate at large. There's no point at which they see the light and repent, they must be defeated. Losing at the ballot box isn't defeat to them.
Part of this is attacking SCOTUS so we stop losing everything by extra-legislative means (convictions, laws, rights, etc). Not regulating, not reforming: attacking. Corruption investigations by any avenue, yanking security money for the republican judges, using Art.3 "Good Behavior" requirements like a cudgel.
The stuff coming out of Jack Smith is a great example. Oh, we can't run this in court oh great and mighty SCOTUS? How about fuck you we'll play in the papers.
posted by Slackermagee at 2:24 PM on October 3 [33 favorites]
Man, remember when Republicans used to talk about the problems of communists were that they wanted you to fink on your neighbors? I do.
posted by corb at 2:26 PM on October 3 [29 favorites]
posted by corb at 2:26 PM on October 3 [29 favorites]
My personal favorite variation upon this narc-your-neighbor trend -- and by "favorite" I mean "the evidence that there is no God is that these people have gone un-lightninged" -- is also in Texas, where areas have passed statutes prohibiting the use of public roads for "abortion trafficking" (aka simply driving a person out of state to obtain a legal abortion that she can't get in Texas, whether they're your partner, your relative, your friend or your Uber customer) -- statutes that rely upon private citizens suing others whom they suspect provided such a ride.
Marsha Blackburn (turn turn turn spit-TN), among others, is happy to echo Thomas and Alito's desire to "review" and overturn Griswold v. Connecticut -- both because they feel that the state should have full power to police even married couples' bedrooms and because Griswold is the keystone upon which any Constitutional "right to privacy" rests.
May the toilet paper of all of these people be surreptitiously replaced with roof insulation.
posted by delfin at 2:39 PM on October 3 [8 favorites]
Marsha Blackburn (turn turn turn spit-TN), among others, is happy to echo Thomas and Alito's desire to "review" and overturn Griswold v. Connecticut -- both because they feel that the state should have full power to police even married couples' bedrooms and because Griswold is the keystone upon which any Constitutional "right to privacy" rests.
May the toilet paper of all of these people be surreptitiously replaced with roof insulation.
posted by delfin at 2:39 PM on October 3 [8 favorites]
I don't like living in interesting horrifying times.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:41 PM on October 3 [5 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 2:41 PM on October 3 [5 favorites]
Why do Republicans get to play for keeps while Democrats can only patiently wait four years for the next existential crisis election? How come we're all fucked if Trump wins again, when Trump and his enablers clearly weren't even remotely fucked when Biden assumed office in 2021?
-----
The two effective means of dealing with it are normally money and money. You either improve material conditions for the foot soldiers so few are willing to suffer for the cause or you cut off the ideological money that funds them by impoverishing and/or jailing their wealthy backers.
On an episode of It Could Happen Here they talked about how Reagan had largely destroyed the labor movement which had been a reliable source of funding and organizational power for more left-ish causes. They then outlined a similar regulatory attack on the money and organization on the right. Those being:
MLMs
Dietary Supplements
and allowing car manufacturers to sell directly to consumers cutting out dealerships
They also talked about how this could cut down on the conspiracy pipeline. I thought it was an interesting take.
posted by Wink Ricketts at 2:43 PM on October 3 [14 favorites]
-----
The two effective means of dealing with it are normally money and money. You either improve material conditions for the foot soldiers so few are willing to suffer for the cause or you cut off the ideological money that funds them by impoverishing and/or jailing their wealthy backers.
On an episode of It Could Happen Here they talked about how Reagan had largely destroyed the labor movement which had been a reliable source of funding and organizational power for more left-ish causes. They then outlined a similar regulatory attack on the money and organization on the right. Those being:
MLMs
Dietary Supplements
and allowing car manufacturers to sell directly to consumers cutting out dealerships
They also talked about how this could cut down on the conspiracy pipeline. I thought it was an interesting take.
posted by Wink Ricketts at 2:43 PM on October 3 [14 favorites]
The future is begging us to make sure Trump loses, and keeps on losing.
This is happening now, not under a future Trump adminiatration.
Undoubtedly a Trump win will make things worse, but Trump losing won't do anything to fix this.
posted by pattern juggler at 3:01 PM on October 3 [5 favorites]
This is happening now, not under a future Trump adminiatration.
Undoubtedly a Trump win will make things worse, but Trump losing won't do anything to fix this.
posted by pattern juggler at 3:01 PM on October 3 [5 favorites]
The stuff coming out of Jack Smith is a great example. Oh, we can't run this in court oh great and mighty SCOTUS? How about fuck you we'll play in the papers.
Too bad the papers aren't playing along.
Man, the New York Times is awful.
posted by Gadarene at 3:41 PM on October 3 [11 favorites]
Too bad the papers aren't playing along.
Man, the New York Times is awful.
posted by Gadarene at 3:41 PM on October 3 [11 favorites]
I don't see, globally or in the US, clear evidence that these efforts are succeeding in any systematic way. Much as I hate to invoke his name in this context, perhaps we are in a Churchillian "end of the beginning?"
Oh it's most definitely the end of the beginning. We've codified equal rights but systemic prejudice is going to take longer to eliminate. Not to mention restoring the welfare state that has been demolished by white supremacists who just can't fucking share. It's an effort that's going to take decades. I wouldn't be surprised if it hits 2200 and the last vestiges of this stupid white supremacy shit are still around. But every generation is better than the last. Every generation sets the bar higher and curses the previous ones because the attitudes of the day were barbaric which makes me hopeful for the future, but how far in that future is anyone's guess.
Undoubtedly a Trump win will make things worse, but Trump losing won't do anything to fix this.
Voting for not Republicans still sees progress. You can't just pick up a society and place it where you want on the social spectrum. Think about just 20 short years ago. 2004. We were just coming off homosexual sexual relations being illegal. Gay people couldn't marry except in The Netherlands and Belgium. Even Massachusetts only had civil unions and were only valid inside MA. There were still four years before CA voted in favor of Prop 8.
Where are we now? Gay marriage is universal and commonly accepted in the United States along with 36 other countries. Four of the five Supreme Court justices that overturned unconstitutional gay marriage bans were appointed by Democratic presidents. The Overton window has shifted so far that reactionaries have to start boiling the frog using trans people as a wedge and we're winning that fight. Inch by god forsaken inch as trans people are normalized in society and more and more people realize that trans people aren't a threat to anything.
Progress isn't nearly as fast as we want. It's never going to be. But to say it won't do anything to fix things is ludicrous.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:48 PM on October 3 [21 favorites]
Oh it's most definitely the end of the beginning. We've codified equal rights but systemic prejudice is going to take longer to eliminate. Not to mention restoring the welfare state that has been demolished by white supremacists who just can't fucking share. It's an effort that's going to take decades. I wouldn't be surprised if it hits 2200 and the last vestiges of this stupid white supremacy shit are still around. But every generation is better than the last. Every generation sets the bar higher and curses the previous ones because the attitudes of the day were barbaric which makes me hopeful for the future, but how far in that future is anyone's guess.
Undoubtedly a Trump win will make things worse, but Trump losing won't do anything to fix this.
Voting for not Republicans still sees progress. You can't just pick up a society and place it where you want on the social spectrum. Think about just 20 short years ago. 2004. We were just coming off homosexual sexual relations being illegal. Gay people couldn't marry except in The Netherlands and Belgium. Even Massachusetts only had civil unions and were only valid inside MA. There were still four years before CA voted in favor of Prop 8.
Where are we now? Gay marriage is universal and commonly accepted in the United States along with 36 other countries. Four of the five Supreme Court justices that overturned unconstitutional gay marriage bans were appointed by Democratic presidents. The Overton window has shifted so far that reactionaries have to start boiling the frog using trans people as a wedge and we're winning that fight. Inch by god forsaken inch as trans people are normalized in society and more and more people realize that trans people aren't a threat to anything.
Progress isn't nearly as fast as we want. It's never going to be. But to say it won't do anything to fix things is ludicrous.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:48 PM on October 3 [21 favorites]
You can't just pick up a society and place it where you want on the social spectrum. Think about just 20 short years ago. 2004.
Or a little over 40 years before that, within the lifetime of many people who are reading this now.
When Jim Crow laws and segregation were still rampant, when women couldn't get remotely fair treatment under the law, from the bank, from employers or from society in general, when being openly LGB made you a target for arrest, violence and/or diagnosis of mental illness, when being non-Protestant made you a second-class citizen in many ways and unfit, in the eyes of many, to hold elected office. The Civil Rights movement, the feminist movement, Stonewall, pushback in general against laws grounded narrowly in specific Christian morality had not reached national momentum yet.
That's how rapid our progress has been over those six decades -- and how fragile it is, as the Alito Court has taken aim at every pillar erected by the Warren Court. That's the America the enemy wants back, and that every "originalist" wants back, as the ~180 years before that period belonged to them.
posted by delfin at 4:23 PM on October 3 [13 favorites]
Or a little over 40 years before that, within the lifetime of many people who are reading this now.
When Jim Crow laws and segregation were still rampant, when women couldn't get remotely fair treatment under the law, from the bank, from employers or from society in general, when being openly LGB made you a target for arrest, violence and/or diagnosis of mental illness, when being non-Protestant made you a second-class citizen in many ways and unfit, in the eyes of many, to hold elected office. The Civil Rights movement, the feminist movement, Stonewall, pushback in general against laws grounded narrowly in specific Christian morality had not reached national momentum yet.
That's how rapid our progress has been over those six decades -- and how fragile it is, as the Alito Court has taken aim at every pillar erected by the Warren Court. That's the America the enemy wants back, and that every "originalist" wants back, as the ~180 years before that period belonged to them.
posted by delfin at 4:23 PM on October 3 [13 favorites]
~300 years ago my German forebears weren't white enough for Franklin LOL
Yet I am not for refusing entirely to admit them into our Colonies: all that seems to be necessary is, to distribute them more equally, mix them with the English, establish English Schools where they are now too thick settled, and take some care to prevent the practice lately fallen into by some of the Ship Owners, of sweeping the German [Jails] to make up the number of their Passengers. I say I am not against the Admission of Germans in general, for they have their Virtues, their industry and frugality is exemplary; They are excellent husbandmen and contribute greatly to the improvement of a Country.posted by torokunai at 4:35 PM on October 3 [5 favorites]
Voting for not Republicans still sees progress.
It isn't that people shouldn't vote, just that the presidential election is not the relevant contest. It is more narratively compelling than the state level contests, but those are the ones that need to be won in order to stop the things in the FPP.
Progress isn't nearly as fast as we want. It's never going to be.
Progress is not inevitable. We've seen hard swings back to regressive positions in the past. Arguably we are seeing one now. That doesn't mean we should give up. It means we need to fight hard to keep things from getting worse. Defeat the Republicans, obviously, but that isn't enough. We also need to work hard to keep the Democrats moving left as well.
posted by pattern juggler at 5:34 PM on October 3 [13 favorites]
It isn't that people shouldn't vote, just that the presidential election is not the relevant contest. It is more narratively compelling than the state level contests, but those are the ones that need to be won in order to stop the things in the FPP.
Progress isn't nearly as fast as we want. It's never going to be.
Progress is not inevitable. We've seen hard swings back to regressive positions in the past. Arguably we are seeing one now. That doesn't mean we should give up. It means we need to fight hard to keep things from getting worse. Defeat the Republicans, obviously, but that isn't enough. We also need to work hard to keep the Democrats moving left as well.
posted by pattern juggler at 5:34 PM on October 3 [13 favorites]
Man, remember when Republicans used to talk about the problems of communists were that they wanted you to fink on your neighbors? I do.
If there's one thing I've learned from paying attention to what self-styled conservatives have had to say over the last fifty years, it's that anything even vaguely resembling self-awareness on their part is vanishingly rare.
What they seem to have instead is Us = Good, Them = Bad as the definition for what Good and Bad are, the laziest and most superficial definitions conceivable of who constitutes Us, and an existential terror of being excluded from Us.
Assume that standpoint and it becomes completely understandable that finking on one's neighbours is not objectionable in and of itself; it's only intolerable when one of Them does it.
This model also explains why being accused of racism or sexism or fascism or any other kind of ill-understood but vaguely threatening kind of -ism instantly provokes such extreme reactions from conservatives: the actual meaning of the accusation is completely lost on them, all they hear is "you are not a Good Person" which instantly triggers that primal fear of exclusion from Us.
And it explains the type of reaction as well. How often have you heard some Fox shouting head hurl accusations whose meaning they clearly do not understand straight back at some or other representative of Them? This is a rhetorical move performed solely to reinforce the perception of their own Usness and the accused's Themness; the actual substance of the accusation doesn't matter even slightly.
Obviously this same kind of pattern also occurs in leftists, but less consistently, and those of us who don't suffer the stereotypical midlife conversion to zealous conservatism tend to grow out of it. This is largely due to having had enough personal contact with disparate systems of oppression to see oppression itself, rather than the specific groups performing it or the specific shape it takes, as the thing worth dismantling.
And this is the bind. Dismantling oppression requires a degree of self-awareness sufficient to ensure that one does not oneself act oppressively. Conservatives consistently lack that self-awareness, which leaves them completely free to run roughshod over anybody who gets in their way without experiencing the tiniest bit of distress. It's a superpower. I have yet to learn of a reliable kryptonite.
posted by flabdablet at 8:22 PM on October 3 [13 favorites]
If there's one thing I've learned from paying attention to what self-styled conservatives have had to say over the last fifty years, it's that anything even vaguely resembling self-awareness on their part is vanishingly rare.
What they seem to have instead is Us = Good, Them = Bad as the definition for what Good and Bad are, the laziest and most superficial definitions conceivable of who constitutes Us, and an existential terror of being excluded from Us.
Assume that standpoint and it becomes completely understandable that finking on one's neighbours is not objectionable in and of itself; it's only intolerable when one of Them does it.
This model also explains why being accused of racism or sexism or fascism or any other kind of ill-understood but vaguely threatening kind of -ism instantly provokes such extreme reactions from conservatives: the actual meaning of the accusation is completely lost on them, all they hear is "you are not a Good Person" which instantly triggers that primal fear of exclusion from Us.
And it explains the type of reaction as well. How often have you heard some Fox shouting head hurl accusations whose meaning they clearly do not understand straight back at some or other representative of Them? This is a rhetorical move performed solely to reinforce the perception of their own Usness and the accused's Themness; the actual substance of the accusation doesn't matter even slightly.
Obviously this same kind of pattern also occurs in leftists, but less consistently, and those of us who don't suffer the stereotypical midlife conversion to zealous conservatism tend to grow out of it. This is largely due to having had enough personal contact with disparate systems of oppression to see oppression itself, rather than the specific groups performing it or the specific shape it takes, as the thing worth dismantling.
And this is the bind. Dismantling oppression requires a degree of self-awareness sufficient to ensure that one does not oneself act oppressively. Conservatives consistently lack that self-awareness, which leaves them completely free to run roughshod over anybody who gets in their way without experiencing the tiniest bit of distress. It's a superpower. I have yet to learn of a reliable kryptonite.
posted by flabdablet at 8:22 PM on October 3 [13 favorites]
Its this a good time to mention The Lives of Others? Because that worked out well.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:19 PM on October 3 [4 favorites]
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:19 PM on October 3 [4 favorites]
They then outlined a similar regulatory attack on the money and organization on the right. Those being:
MLMs
Dietary Supplements
and allowing car manufacturers to sell directly to consumers cutting out dealerships
Don't forget crypto
Probably AI soon enough
posted by eustatic at 9:20 PM on October 3 [6 favorites]
MLMs
Dietary Supplements
and allowing car manufacturers to sell directly to consumers cutting out dealerships
Don't forget crypto
Probably AI soon enough
posted by eustatic at 9:20 PM on October 3 [6 favorites]
Even Massachusetts only had civil unions and were only valid inside MA.
Are you maybe thinking of Vermont? Massachusetts has never had civil unions. In the immediate aftermath of Goodridge there were some half-assed attempts by so-called moderates to establish civil unions as some sort of necessary, baby-steps compromise, but all of those attempts either failed to attract enough support or were interpreted by the SJC as not being equivalent to marriage and thus not satisfying the requirements of Goodridge.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:31 AM on October 4 [1 favorite]
Are you maybe thinking of Vermont? Massachusetts has never had civil unions. In the immediate aftermath of Goodridge there were some half-assed attempts by so-called moderates to establish civil unions as some sort of necessary, baby-steps compromise, but all of those attempts either failed to attract enough support or were interpreted by the SJC as not being equivalent to marriage and thus not satisfying the requirements of Goodridge.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:31 AM on October 4 [1 favorite]
Are you maybe thinking of Vermont? Massachusetts has never had civil unions.
They called it marriage but it wasn’t recognized in any other state or federally. In all practical ways it was a civil union.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:18 AM on October 4
They called it marriage but it wasn’t recognized in any other state or federally. In all practical ways it was a civil union.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:18 AM on October 4
They called it marriage but it wasn’t recognized in any other state or federally. In all practical ways it was a civil union.
Uh, absolutely not, it was a legal marriage in the state of Massachusetts. It was not a civil union, and it directly started a chain reaction that lead to Obergerfell 11 years later. Names matter.
posted by rhymedirective at 6:32 AM on October 4 [5 favorites]
Uh, absolutely not, it was a legal marriage in the state of Massachusetts. It was not a civil union, and it directly started a chain reaction that lead to Obergerfell 11 years later. Names matter.
posted by rhymedirective at 6:32 AM on October 4 [5 favorites]
They called it marriage but it wasn’t recognized in any other state or federally. In all practical ways it was a civil union.
No. It wasn't a civil union. It was marriage. Vermont had civil unions, and the whole point of establishing civil unions was to deliberately create a bullshit separate-but-equal legal status that could still be discriminated against. Following Goodridge, if you were married in Massachusetts, there was no way to legally distinguish whether it was a same-sex marriage or not because everyone fell into the same category. It placed the burden on other states to figure out how to make DOMA actually work, and in the end that burden ended up being too great leading in no small part to Obergerfell.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:43 AM on October 4 [5 favorites]
No. It wasn't a civil union. It was marriage. Vermont had civil unions, and the whole point of establishing civil unions was to deliberately create a bullshit separate-but-equal legal status that could still be discriminated against. Following Goodridge, if you were married in Massachusetts, there was no way to legally distinguish whether it was a same-sex marriage or not because everyone fell into the same category. It placed the burden on other states to figure out how to make DOMA actually work, and in the end that burden ended up being too great leading in no small part to Obergerfell.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:43 AM on October 4 [5 favorites]
flabdablet: Dismantling oppression requires a degree of self-awareness sufficient to ensure that one does not oneself act oppressively. Conservatives consistently lack that self-awareness, which leaves them completely free to run roughshod over anybody who gets in their way without experiencing the tiniest bit of distress. It's a superpower. I have yet to learn of a reliable kryptonite.
Practising compassion, and then meeting circumstances where your toolkit (fundraising, lobbying, whatever) can't help someone you see as a viable person deserving aid. That's an encounter where you're stripped of the things that (you believe) keep you safe -- the shorthand used to be "there, but for the grace of god, go I."
posted by k3ninho at 10:06 AM on October 4
Practising compassion, and then meeting circumstances where your toolkit (fundraising, lobbying, whatever) can't help someone you see as a viable person deserving aid. That's an encounter where you're stripped of the things that (you believe) keep you safe -- the shorthand used to be "there, but for the grace of god, go I."
posted by k3ninho at 10:06 AM on October 4
When Republicans say they hate big government, they mean the part that might help black people out. The jackboots stepping on people's faces? They're all for that.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 2:23 PM on October 4 [1 favorite]
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 2:23 PM on October 4 [1 favorite]
"fine, the government can't, but they can"
This stuff is still the government though. The courts and laws are still the state. It really isn't distributed at all. It isn't devolved. It's still the state doing the enforcement. They're just crowdsourcing and gig-economy'ing the investigative workforce.
posted by srboisvert at 6:31 PM on October 4 [1 favorite]
This stuff is still the government though. The courts and laws are still the state. It really isn't distributed at all. It isn't devolved. It's still the state doing the enforcement. They're just crowdsourcing and gig-economy'ing the investigative workforce.
posted by srboisvert at 6:31 PM on October 4 [1 favorite]
« Older Citations from a plague | How Deep-Sea Comb Jellies Hold Their Shape Under... Newer »
posted by Pedantzilla at 10:42 AM on October 3 [21 favorites]