@Seamus

It's been pointed out that we basically no longer accept racial discrimination as religious practice with any religion or denomination, yet continue to tolerate (legally and socially) formal restrictions on women in clergy and the like, or anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive policies in religiously-aligned institutions. If mainstream society has already agreed to reject racism in religion, is there any logical justification against targeting sexism in the same spaces? To put it one way, why doesn't anyone care that Biden attends a gender-segregated church?


This person estimates around a third of all homicides by stranger in the United States are by police officer. It's probably in the ballpark given that most murders are done by friends, family, colleagues, or other non-strangers, but to really make it work you would have to categorically exclude most sorts of manslaughter (such as killing by traffic collision).


Responsive to the earlier discussion of the regulation of voting (Herblock):




One of the great flaws of the Democratic leadership remains, in practical terms, their lack of expressive urgency. It isn't to say that they must be constantly screaming into the media in the most intemperate language - they have, after all, failed up to this point to work themselves into that stance organically - but if nothing else then...



Last I heard the Congress has confirmed like one federal judge so far. Many ways for this session to turn out as 'The Tragedy of Senator Manchin the Blowhard.'



Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
Populist politics is certainly not the exclusive domain of the right - as we can see by the speed being anti Trans / Gay / [insert thing] occurs with it now reaching the level of "thought crimes" on both extremes - the terms Right and Left does rather over simplify things.

Accusations are as good as proof and lead to people being as far as possible edited out of a group for Intolerance. Gender? Utterly subjective and up to the person; race? Utterly subjective and up to the person (unless you are too white it seems then you're just "white") and if you disagree you are wrong. Probably Evil. And ideally should be sacked and ostracised. With some very odd boundaries: each person is individual and themselves and should be valued for them being themselves at all times and so on and so forth. But if they so much as looked at a (generally) female under 18 then they are still a monster who is preying on innocent children. End of story.

Another good one is the Thought Crime of being Silent (or even just too quiet) - in something that Stalin would be proud of, not declaiming your approval of the current thought is itself evidence of a Crime. So you can't just not be racist - you should be "anti-racist", or more generally an Ally - whilst still not being overbearing of course. If you are a non white and hold a view that is wrong, then you are a Coconut or a Banana or to be less subtle a race traitor since inclusion for some means choosing to hold the correct views.

Clearly there is a massive power disparity between the two "sides" with persons on one (in the USA at least) able to kill people with relative impunity with the other mainly having the ability to hurl a torrent of abuse. But I personally think that there is an equal will to enforce the power if it was there.

Frankly, apart from on here I mainly find myself not risking holding an opinion since whilst it is highly likely no one cares what I think or say why take the risk?

You sound hysterical. Take a step back. No one is coming for you.

Just apply rationality and empathy.

Quote Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai View Post
So it appears that Manchin CAN be pressured---but fellow Democrats just are choosing not to---because many of them are taking the same millions from corporate/industry donors, which, surprise, is part of what HR 1/SB 1 is attempting to address.
I'm pretty confident Manchin isn't in this for the donations, not to mention that it's not credible that conservative lobbyists have something to offer him that liberal ones, or the DSCC, or the White House, don't. The likelier scenario is he's a true believer in what he's propounding, the ideology of the status quo. (It doesn't hurt that he is now the most-sought and most-valuable Senator in the country.)

If Manchin had a pecuniary motive from any angle (for himself, for his office/campaign, for his state, what-have-you), and Sinema along with him, then legislation would already have been signed by Biden.