existential1 wrote (edited )
Also identified things based on Roe or the argument used of "privacy" for other things like:
- Gay Marriage
- Interrracial Marriage
- Sodomy Laws
Unless you're a religious terrorist in a homogeneous culture, there's something you have to be extremely angry about.
Fuck the state.
So I feel this may be a good place and time to ask but who leaked this? I feel like the whole response today was muted bc of the leak. There are barricades around the Supreme Court bc of the leak and subsequent protests. They even made it a harsher penalty to protest outside justices homes. It seems like the leak set up the state to be in the perfect position to respond.
would be a great time to start making birth control more available and more FREE and also maybe more BETTER like with fewer SIDE EFFECTS
I think american feminists should give violence chance. Less electoralism, more arson and shit.
(I aknowledge that that's easy for me to say as a european without a uterus, from the comfort of my couch, but it seems like voting real hard has so far not brought the US any closer to a law that solidifies a pregnant person's right to bodily autonomy)
i wonder how many men in the u.s. would risk going to prison for women's abortion rights?
itsalways1312somewhere wrote (edited )
I think women's violence would not be seen as something to be feared or as something valid.
I think that depends on the level of violence. Especially if they're already going to convict you of murder, you might as well give them something to really make those charges stick.
If this happened in my country, I'd like to imagine I'd pimp a judge's ride like the IRA - in a video game, to blow off some steam
mofongo wrote (edited )
That's already on the table, see Jane's Revenge
Tecate_Coyote wrote (edited )
Liberalism isn't the answer but neither is violence, no matter how tempting it is. If we look at the Civil Rights movement, Malcolm X advocated for violence initially and later changed his mind embracing MLK's perspective. I think protests, sit-downs, strikes, etc are the answer. Violence will only allow the media and the state to villanize us further, as they did with movements like Antifa and BLM.
edit: Whoops, I was wrong, my bad. Looks like I got some more reading to do
Malcolm did not change his mind to fully embracing MLK's perspective. He did experience Hajj which changed his mind about considerably many things. However, the plausible use of violence was not one of those things.
It is safe to say he respected MLK's perspective, but felt it naive.
Sheesh, you're right, I was totally talking out of my ass with what I remembered from high school history.
Lifetime appointed, unelected officials. The court always ends up stacked and neither Dems nor Reps will want to create term limits or revamp the structure. What avenue left is there? Have there been writings on potential solutions to the supreme court?
That's something I've always been confused about. What is the path towards anarchy? Is it building your community and cultivating a general sense of self-reliance? And just rejecting the state on a personal/communal level? Because it seems improbable to turn the US at large into anarchy, I feel like the only viable approach is on the small scale. I should probably read more essays.
Anarchy is when courts and politicians have no ability to rule people's bodies because no one will accept their authority. It's when no one will obey any order or produce any profit or recognize any law or leave any symbol of authority standing because the people who ruled them have exposed themselves so completely that there's no going back.
ziq wrote (edited )
The reason the state loves to control women's bodies is because people with children will be far less willing to revolt because them getting arrested or killed would risk the wellbeing of their children. The more responsibilities people have, the less risks they're going to take and the more they're going to advocate for stability (prolonging the current system) vs. radical change that could put their family's safety in danger.
this is a very convincing argument. I figured it was the labour shortage..................
Genuine question- what the fuck do we do now? Show up and protest, sure. Vote when the time comes, easy. But like...beyond that. I need to know what to do beyond that this is so fucked up
this is tragic, the worst ruling by the court that i can remember in decades. primary responsibility for this loss of rights lies with trump and the intolerance and ignorance that prevails in the u.s. and this is an example of how voting or not voting can have a major effect on us. we now have a bush/trump supreme court that will continue to chip away at our (for those in the u.s.) rights and freedom.
ziq wrote (edited )
Trump and Bush lost the popular vote so that's bullshit.
Democrats (who work to get repubs elected in red states) are salivating at this ruling because it lets them use it to get votes. Because people are as gullible as you. The snipers on the roof of the supreme court were put there by a democrat government. They are not on your side.
trump and bush may have lost the popular vote but that doesn't mean that with fewer votes for them or with more votes for their opponents they could not have also lost the electoral vote. voting or not voting matters in the real world.
and bush actually only 'won' the electoral vote because the republican supreme court ordered an end to vote recounts. in most other countries his opponent would have cried foul and people would have been in the streets.
in most other countries his opponent would have cried foul
And that is why voting won't do shit.
In case you thought they were done in his concurrence Thomas calls for challenges to Lawrence v Texas, Obergerfell AND Griswold, which secured the right for married people to use birth control. The goal is to ban all non-procreative sex.
Welcome to the christofascist state friends.