On Sunday, Fox News reported, “Calls to repeal women’s rights to vote are emerging from the online firestorm over the Lindsay Clancy trial, prompting Republican women to warn that the intraparty rhetoric could hurt the GOP.”
The fact that this article was published by Fox News was itself noteworthy. Press Baron Rupert Murdoch is one of the few remaining centers of power on the right who is strong enough to pick fights with Trump and his MAGA supporters. In recent years, Murdoch’s outlets have carved out a position for themselves as gatekeepers who work to protect the GOP brand from the most self-destructive impulses of MAGA. One recent example of this phenomenon is the decision to fire (or at least take off the air) the firebrand election denier Maria Bartiromo.
The Fox article was also significant for highlighting how the tragic case of Lindsay Clancy is being exploited by the hard right to justify misogyny. Clancy killed three of her children in 2023. Her legal defense was that she suffered from postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder. Eleven jurors voted to acquit Clancy based on this argument, but one juror resisted, leading to a mistrial.
Nine of the jurors who voted to acquit—presumably because they thought Clancy deserved pity rather than harsh punishment—were women; the lone holdout was a man. The hard right has seized on these facts to justify arguments that women are incapable of reason. The Fox article quoted a post on X that made a common argument: “The female jurors in the Lindsay Clancy trial are speaking out about their deliberations and disagreements with the sole male holdout. The more they speak the better they make the case for repealing the 19th Amendment.”
They are throwing everything they can at the wall to see what sticks so they can destroy whats left of the US government and start their long wished for civil war. They want a monarchy, and they have the US militarys backing to get it.
I said this was going to happen weeks ago and people here on lemmy were calling me stupid
The deep conspiracy theory is that this whole case is fabricated to create toxic man vs women discourse because racism isn’t distracting enough right now.
This case is basically an exact copy of a case that apparently happened in Ireland 3 years ago that caused a lot or controversy.
if true I’m pleased that racism isnt working well enough for them. And I don’t think sexism will work well enough for them either.
There’s some in the comments saying the same. That’s what I heard about Roe v Wade as well and look where we are.
The erosion of women’s rights has been happening and is continuing to happen. Don’t let anyone gaslight you about this.
Not just women’s rights but the rights of anyone that isn’t a richwhiteman.
YES
This will last only as long as women keep paying taxes. No taxation w/o representation, amirite? Once men and business partners see the light and start putting the capital of their ventures and earnings in to their tax-free partner’s hands… It’s a lot of hot air…
It wasn’t until the 70s that women were protected from discrimination when opening their own bank accounts. It’s not like they’re particularly opposed to taking away our access to financial institutions.
I actually think this case was a psyop designed to erode women’s rights
If tiktok never pushed this then Clancy would have went to prison and we wouldn’t even be having this conversation
If tiktok never pushed this then Clancy would have went to prison and we wouldn’t even be having this conversation
Her lawyer was discussing the parameters of an insanity plea back in March. This was long before the case blew up on social media.
It’s entirely feasible that she would have gotten an insanity ruling without social media influence.
No. She’d be in a psych ward for twenty years after her not guilty verdict wasn’t derailed into mistrial by a magat.
The belief that there is no excuse for killing children is a belief held by people of all political views
Yeah I agree with this.
Some of these TikToks have gone viral and they’ve been incredibly extreme, with some of them showing women discussing wanting to murder their children(without any irony or satire).
Even videos that clearly are parody have felt dangerous because the right preys upon people not knowing where the boundaries between irony/satire/parody is and genuine belief in what the content is presenting.
She could at least wear some safety glasses.
That video is offering something to do that is not hurting the children.
Well yes but I haven’t posted any of the more violent parodies. I’d rather not.
I also want to point out that I’m not agreeing with this in any way shape or form, but rather I like many others predicted it unfortunately.
Using a handful of fringe extremist examples and then applying that to all women is problematic.
I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying here.
I’m not applying it to all women. The discussion was mainly centered around the reactions and that they existed. And the possibility that the outrage was stoked and pushed towards certain extremes in order to provide an excuse.
Every person I know sympathizing with her including my gf is a regular tiktok scroller, for what that’s worth, haha
There are many more conversations about this happening outside of TikTok.
To counter your anecdotal evidence, I’ve never watched TikToks and especially not on this topic. I still sympathize with Clancy.
Tiktok isn’t the reason so many people empathize with Clancy.
Besides the psychosis can you explain to me what else they might be empathizing with?
Maybe I’m missing knowledge about the case somewhere but I have tried to go over the various points of the case that I’m aware of in order to give her some validation and I’ve really struggled.
Edit
I appreciate your time and what you have shared. I decided to spend more time googling the case and looking up the details.
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve shared at all.
That said, some of the more extreme viral content of people showing solidarity with her has been people making content showing them pretend to hurt their children.
We are both well aware that conservatives are always scheming about ways in which to remove the rights of others. So yes, I do think there is merit to the idea that this was astroturfed someway in order to provide them with a casus belli.
There’s a lot of concerns about the investigation. The police arrive to 3 dead children and a woman with catastrophic injuries and the husband saying she did it. The husband’s phone or phone records weren’t seized, as far as I can work out his clothing wasnt seized, her apple watch wasnt seized, blood on the bedroom door knob wasn’t swabbed, there’s a roughly 15 minute gap in the timeline where he’s not accounted for, and multiple other things. His phone should have been seized cos apart from anything else, the cops may not have been able to get into hers.
The children deserved a high quality investigation and didn’t get it. A lot of people have understandable concerns about the evidence.
This I didn’t know. The children deserve it but she does too.
I haven’t really seen any of this in the news at all when it comes to this topic, thanks for sharing.
Conservatives will use whatever excuse is available to try to strip women of their rights. I think it’s lazy to shrug this issue off as just another way for conservatives to exert control even if there’s some truth to it. Because when you assert that the reason so many people are invested in this is because of bad actors, you’re ignoring the very real women and allies that are shouting from the roof tops about the issues with women’s healthcare.
Why not wrangle this topic to push the conversation about improving health outcomes for women instead of telling others to be quiet because conservatives might use our concerns to subjugate us?
Women’s healthcare has been neglected for a long time. Health studies routinely treat women as smaller men. That includes during pregnancy and postpartum care. There are many, many women who have struggled with postpartum depression, and some psychosis, and did not receive any help from their doctors, husbands, families, etc.
The maternal mortality rate in the US is the highest of any developed nation.
So there are thousands to millions of women who desperately needed help, who were drowning while having to care for a newborn and possibly other children, with very little to no help at all. They were forced to tough it out. Sometimes being forced to tough out getting scant hours of sleep each night and healing from birth and dealing with postpartum depression leads to mental breaks and psychosis.
Many mothers can empathize with that feeling of being abandoned and having to put everything ahead of taking care of themselves to their own detriment. We’re often told to lose weight, we’re hysteric, we just need to take a break, whatever when we seek help for women’s health issues. Women are often not taken seriously when we report symptoms.
Have you read the Lemon Clot story? It is focused on having to entertain guests during the postpartum period, but it’s an eye-opening look at some of the physical ailments women deal with immediately after birth:
You will be leaking out of places you don’t want to leak out of. Do you really want to stand up from the couch and have your father’s parents see that not only have you bled through your pad, but the blood is now running down your leg. Do you really want to say, “honey, can you come with me to the bathroom, I am bleeding all over and I feel a huge bloodclot coming out”… in front of them? Contrast that to “mom, I need your help please, now, I’m bleeding all over!” Does your husband really understand the volume of stuff that will be coming out of you, the possibility of lemon-sized clots of blood? Not 2-dimensional lemon-sized, but huge, round, 3-dimensional lemon-sized?
How many bathrooms do you have? If only one, do you REALLY want to have to make it “guest-level clean” every time you leave it? Do you really want this gang of people ogling your diaper-sized pads, peribottle, tucks pads, and all the other supplies that will be in the bathroom? Even if you have two bathrooms, that means you can’t use the main bathroom, because you still have to leave it “guest-level clean” every time you use it.
Do they really plan to do something other than hold the baby, pass the baby around, and sit around expecting you guys to wait on them? Are they going to sit and stare at you? Thirty minutes after they arrive, and baby wants to breastfeed, are they going to quickly and willingly LEAVE your home so that you can breastfeed in the privacy and comfort of your space? Or are they going to hang around outside, waiting for you to be done, and knocking every so often wanting to know if they can come back in? Yeah, that’s great for breastfeeding.
Or better yet, are they going to blow you off, saying “it’s no big deal”, and expect you to breastfeed in front of them? Even experienced moms need several weeks of practice to get good at it, so to speak, so that they can breastfeed wherever they want. Learning to breastfeed is not a time for people to ogle and stare at you.
When your breasts are engorged and painful and you want NOTHING to touch them, what then? Does your [dear husband] think it will be okay for his dad to stare at your huge naked breasts as you walk around topless?
What if your birth is smack in the middle of their trip? So what are they going to do the first few days, before baby? Are they going to sit and stare at you, waiting for the big moment? Then what? Are they going to camp out in your hospital room every day, all day? Yeah, that’s great for resting. What happens when you leave the hospital and they beat you to your own home, and all you want to do is lay down in your own bed? Are they going to leave graciously, or are they going to sit in your living room, eating your food, messing up your house, and making noise, so you can’t nap?
Does your [dear husband] understand ANY of these things?? Does he not understand that it is NOT about entertaining guests, but about recovery from a major medical procedure (either vaginal or c-section)? Does he not understand that you just grew another human being in your body, and will have just gone through the process of getting it out?? This is going to be an exhausting, messy, wildly hormonal time. Does he not get that??
Well, none of this was anything new to me. I have read Lemon Clot as well.
Again, I’m very sympathetic towards this and a lot of this does apply to Clancy, but she’s also in a different class than most women. She had access to a lot more than the average woman did, hence why I struggle to understand the surge of sympathy towards her in particular.
This is why I mentioned my possible lack of knowledge on the case.
Even with her access to more than the average woman, she didn’t receive adequate care. It’s actually because she’s an affluent white woman that we’re even talking about this case and the overwhelming issues with women’s healthcare that helped lead to this tragedy.
You can believe that Clancy deserves prison. But to use this case to argue that women and mothers don’t need a better system or better help when they are struggling is my main issue with most conversations surrounding this. Or worse, to argue that women are too emotional and too beholden to our hormones to make rational decisions or to be trusted with our own children.
This woman asked for help and her family and doctors didn’t do enough. That’s my personal opinion. And having been a woman who was abandoned by her husband and family during a postpartum period, I can empathize with Clancy and what it took to push her to the point of psychosis.
Postpartum can be an incredibly dark and scary time for women. I would never wish what I went through on my worst enemy.
“All the women are telling us we’re wrong. We should probably take their voices away.”
Typical fucking conservative logic. I hate these people
Also they missed the much more obvious conclusion: the lone holdout juror was a man with no evidence, no logic, and all emotion. Shouldn’t we take away men’s voting rights instead? /s
A mentally ill woman kills her kids, so women shouldn’t be able to vote?
What happens when a mentally ill man shoots a bunch of random people?
Most of them are completely opposed to voting. They are trying to exclude only a portion of the current electorate, as it is more difficult to convince a significant part of the population to support the total abolition of elections.
That’s what bugs me, the double standards. If a female led superhero movie sucks, Hollywood is afraid to invest in female led superhero movies. If a male led superhero movie sucks, oh well, shit happens.
If a woman does something wrong, it’s on all women. If a black person does something wrong, it’s on all black people. If an immigrant does something wrong, it’s on all immigrants. If a transgender person does a mass shooting or a transgender person’s partner shoots someone, it’s used against all transgender people. But if a white cis man rapes and murders, it isn’t seen as a reflection of their demographic
Don’t remember what the term was. Glass cliff? Something like that?
There’s a theory that women get put in charge/lead roles when people can tell shit is about to hit the fan.
Glass ceiling.
The glass ceiling is an invisible, unwritten barrier that stops women and minority groups from getting top jobs in management and leadership, no matter how skilled or hardworking they are.
No, not that. It’s specifically “oh shit this is gonna happen and fuck up earning next three quarters, let’s get a woman CEO before then”
Well would you look at that, I hadn’t heard about this one before. It is called the “Glass Cliff” theory! Thanks for mentioning it
This is a well-documented phenomenon in business and politics where women (and minorities) are preferentially promoted to leadership roles during times of crisis, recession, or severe organizational distress.
But if a white cis man rapes and murders, it isn’t seen as a reflection of their demographic
And if you point it out or dare to speak about cis white men in isolation, you’re called a misandrist.
Conservatism is about unequality. For them it’s just “nature” to collectively punish all people belonging to a given group that are less powerful.
If you’re part of a more powerful group, all your grievances with a group are automatically justified. If not, even if they were justified, you have to show the moral high ground by not acting out on them.
What happens when a mentally ill man shoots a bunch of random people?
Thoughts and prayers.
They give the officer a promotion.
Tragic lone wolf, nothing can be done
Something something bad apple
I mean just go to the Notable Familicides section and observe the extraordinary amount of men and few women perpetrators.
Wouldn’t https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filicide be a more relevant link?
A 1999 U.S. Department of Justice study concluded that mothers were responsible for a higher share of children killed during infancybetween 1976 and 1997 in the United States, while fathers were more likely to have been responsible for the murders of children aged eight or older.[1] Parents were responsible for 61% of child murders under the age of five.[2]Sometimes, there is a combination of murder and suicide in filicide cases. On average, according to FBI statistics, 450 children are murdered by their parents each year in the United States.[3]
An in-depth longitudinal study of 297 cases convicted of filicide and 45 of filicide-suicide in the United Kingdom between 1997 and 2006 showed that 37% of the perpetrators had a recorded mental illness at the time. The most common diagnoses were mood disorders and personality disorders rather than psychosis, but the latter accounted for 15% of cases. However – similar to findings in a large Danish study – the majority had not had contact with mental health services prior to the murders, and few had received treatment. Female perpetrators were more likely to have given birth as teenagers. Fathers were more likely to have been convicted of violent offences and have a history of substance misuse, and were more likely to kill multiple victims. Infants were more likely to be victims than older children, and a link to post-partum depression was suggested.[4]
Edit: Literally just quoted from the link to pull it into the discussion.
I literally got banned from a very popular community for pointing this out once.
Apparently it’s misandrist to acknowledge simple facts.
The simple fact is that men disproportionately commit violent crimes, and it’s heavily tied to patriarchy enabling it.
I mean just look at how many people on that list are of a society and/or religion that enforces strict patriarchal rule of society and family.
Men in these environments are taught from childhood that they’re supposed to keep all members of their family under their thumb, and anything less makes them a fundamental failure of a man. So they abandon anything even remotely resembling empathy towards women and children to protect their own egos and status. Thus, violence becomes acceptable to enforce domination, in their minds.
You don’t have this in nearly the same capacity with women in any society or religion. It wasn’t even what happened in this case of murder.
I was listening to a review of Matt Walsh’s review of the new Spiderman. Walsh said that he almost always chooses the movies and shows he and his wife watch together and he was bragging that one time, out of the goodness of his heart, he let his wife pick the movie. And he hadn’t even known she was a Spiderman fan. Holy fuck, imagine thinking it’s normal to be that dominating in a relationship. Imagine not even knowing what characters your partner is a fan of. Imagine thinking you’re good for letting your partner pick the movie once in 15 years. He thinks it’s his responsibility as the man to always pick what they do.
It would seem facts don’t have a place right now. Can’t last too long. Ignoring reality has never worked out for long.
Unfortunately, trying to survive under insane regimes can be quite the trick.
Hey, stop making this political! /s
They give him a badge /satire
Without looking into this. I would guess the bigger thing MAGA is leaning in is all the support Lindsay is getting. Women are posting TikToks holding their own babies with the title “Same Lindsay.” It’s a lot like the defund the police thing. It doesn’t matter what your actual message is, the way it’s being conveyed is way too easy to miss represent.
Without looking into this…
And that’s the part where you set the phone down and fuck off.
Aren’t those TikTok’s expressing solidarity in that they have also struggled with postpartum depression with little help or understanding? The interpretation that those women are suggesting they want to kill their children seems like a disingenuous one.
Yes, but that’s the point of the last part of my statement. It doesn’t matter what the actual message was or is. The way it was conveyed was way to easily misunderstood and was an obvious target.
was way to easily misunderstood
Misunderstood by you. I understood their point and I didn’t even watch any of their TikToks.
I’d be concerned about someone who made a “Same Lindsay” social media post. I would not generalize it to her whole gender.
Yeah, I agree with that. That’s the logical thing to think. But you know MAGA isn’t based in logic.
Same thing that happens every day when a mental man kills. Either shoot self, shot by cop, or mysteriously dies in custody.
Rarely do the mass murder men make it to trial.
Oh I feel bad for laughing so hard at this
Wow, a classic.
I wouldn’t say that
I hate how people keep emphasizing “the one holdout was male!!!”. The other two men in the jury voted with the women. I get that there’s a lot of theories about how and why gender matters in this case, but the gender of the one holdout is really a meaningless piece of information. If gender had nothing to do with it, there would still be a 50/50 chance of the one holdout being a man.
Nine of the jurors who voted to acquit—presumably because they thought Clancy deserved pity
I don’t think this is why they voted to acquit. It was cause she knew there was a problem and was reaching out and doing all the right things and nobody was helping her.
This was an entirely avoidable case in a country where we care about mental health.
I didn’t know anything about this case besides its existence, but it looks like she had plenty of professional assistance, a number of prescriptions that were both taken and not, recommendations of hospitalization that were declined and later accepted, and on and on. I’m not saying the system didn’t fail her, but she had a lot of help along the way. I would not call this a traditional case of someone falling through the cracks.
There are also indications that social stigma on her and her husband’s part caused care to be declined at times. That’s a separate issue that we need to address as a society.
It is absolutely not lol I watched until the prosecution rested, it’s because the Massachusetts law is that the prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she was sane at and during the incident, for a person who had been to a psychiatric hospital multiple times and was on trazadone, an ssri, and was hardly sleeping and wrote in her diary she was having hallucinations. Even if you think she was sane at the time that alone is enough for reasonable doubt.
She got mental health care and I would argue with one doctor pretty good care, but US mental health care just sucks. I would also say it’s still her fault for not leaving when she started going downhill (and told her mom she had thoughts of hurting the kids), and because I think it was more of a murder-suicide than psychosis. It’s your responsibility to leave at that point if you feel like you might be a danger to people around you.
the Massachusetts law is that the prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she was sane at and during the incident
How does this not prevent the prosecution of all crimes? How could you ever prove that about anyone, ever?
Well it’s beyond a reasonable doubt, and most don’t plead insanity because most people won’t believe “oh he went insane so he robbed a bank” unless they have a reason to. This lady was going downhill for months.
I didnt really follow the case. How was she turned down or how did it happen that help was refused?
Like were her doctors complete asshats or what exactly happened? It doesnt help that there were already two kids, like was her husband having her constantly pump out kids? Was there any discussion about constant
They could just say they don’t want women to vote because they tend to be more empathetic and compassionate and therefore vote against conservatives. Just tell the fucking truth for once.
Lol, but the conservative voter base believe their wives are subservient and will vote the same as the husband. Head of the household and alk that. Heaven forbid women have minds of their own!
/s for the treacle like wits amongst us
I didn’t think they trouble themselves with the truth very often.
That seems like political suicide. Either no one votes for your insanely shitty platform or idiots do and then you have a revolution. Because we’re not going back, hard stop.
They’re banking on AI surveillance being able to hold back the masses.
People said the same thing about abortion, and yet here we are
Yup. Barely a peep when it happened.
Gestures at the last twelve years
From everything they’re doing it doesn’t look like they ever want to have a fair vote.
It really is the best to have to live in a society where people who say this shit aren’t only tolerated, but provided with platforms (and sometimes straight cash from far right lunatics) to push it.
Especially when I’m old enough to remember when this was decidedly not the case. I remember what it was like, and I’m fucking furious that they took it away from us.
Our society has been poisoned.
Especially when I’m old enough to remember when this was decidedly not the case.
It was only a decade ago!!!
Same. It’s so sad.
The Lindsay Clancy case did generate some genuinely disturbing online rhetoric. There are, in fact, fringe conservative and MAGA-adjacent accounts calling for the repeal of the 19th Amendment, and there is even a petition explicitly connecting the Clancy case to a demand to repeal women’s suffrage. That part is real.
But that is very different from saying “MAGA is exploiting the Lindsay Clancy case to try to end women’s right to vote.” There is no evidence that the MAGA movement, the Republican Party, Congress, or any serious political organization is pursuing repeal of the 19th Amendment because of this case. What exists is a fringe online reaction that has been amplified because it is outrageous.
The actual court case has nothing whatsoever to do with women’s voting rights. It was a criminal trial concerning whether Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible for killing her three children. The jury ultimately deadlocked 11–1 and the judge declared a mistrial.
And frankly, I think the lone holdout juror deserves some credit for doing exactly what a juror is supposed to do: make his own judgment rather than surrender his position simply because eleven other people disagreed with him. Whether his interpretation of the evidence and reasonable-doubt standard was correct is a legitimate question. But unanimity exists precisely because one juror is allowed to disagree. The defense even attempted to have the juror removed, and the judge declined to do so.
That’s not “MAGA ending women’s voting rights.” That’s the jury system functioning as designed, even if the result is frustrating.
The Nation is taking a real but extremely fringe online phenomenon and presenting it in its headline as though it represents an organized political effort to abolish women’s suffrage. That is sensationalism, and it is dangerously close to misinformation because the headline encourages readers to infer a political movement that the evidence does not establish.
There is certainly room to criticize people who genuinely advocate repealing the 19th Amendment. I would criticize that position myself. But we should not turn a handful of inflammatory social-media accounts into “MAGA is trying to end women’s right to vote.”
And if this is a moderated community, this is exactly where better moderation matters. A provocative political claim can be discussed, but the title should accurately describe what the linked article actually establishes. “Fringe MAGA-adjacent activists are calling for repeal of the 19th Amendment following the Clancy mistrial” would be a defensible description. “MAGA is exploiting the case to end women’s right to vote” is a much broader claim that the evidence simply does not support.
Disclaimer: Nothing in my comment should be interpreted as support for MAGA, the political right, conservatism, or any effort whatsoever to repeal the 19th Amendment or restrict women’s rights. I oppose those positions. My objection here is specifically to sensationalized and misleading claims that take fringe rhetoric and present it as an established political movement. I support equal rights and the fundamental human rights afforded to people regardless of sex, race, religion, political affiliation, or any other personal characteristic. Fact-checking exaggerated claims is not an endorsement of the people or ideology being discussed. It is simply an insistence that political arguments be based on what the evidence actually demonstrates.
Wow, nuance!
These are the people driving the buzz. Just random people, with really only a subset of people agreeing with either.
Ya! Nuance!
You’re taking evidence of a fringe movement and presenting it as evidence of a widespread Republican Party movement. Those are two very different claims.
Yes, there are fringe activists currently calling for repeal of the 19th Amendment, and one of them apparently showed up outside the Lindsay Clancy courthouse with a “Repeal the 19th” sign. That establishes that these people exist. It does not establish that this is a widespread movement within the Republican Party, much less that the Republican Party is pursuing repeal as a political objective. Current reporting actually describes the people pushing this as fringe activists.
There’s also a rather enormous constitutional hurdle you’re overlooking. The 19th Amendment cannot simply be repealed through ordinary legislation, executive action, or a presidential order. Under Article V, repealing it would require another constitutional amendment. That means either two-thirds of both chambers of Congress must propose one, or two-thirds of the states must call a convention to propose one. Then three-fourths of the states, currently 38, would have to ratify it.
So I’m not claiming nobody has ever suggested repealing the 19th Amendment. They clearly have. I’m saying that extrapolating from a handful of fringe activists and an isolated courthouse protest to “the Republican Party wants to repeal women’s right to vote” is not supported by the evidence. If you have evidence of an organized Republican campaign, Republican Party platform, congressional proposal, or state-level movement actually pursuing repeal, that’s a substantially different claim and I’d be interested in seeing it.
And now, for the not so nice part.
You are doing the exact thing I am arguing against: presenting out-of-context pictures as though they somehow validate a conclusion you had already reached. You aren’t examining the evidence and then reaching a conclusion; you’re working backward from the conclusion and selectively presenting whatever you think supports it. This kind of reasoning, and the way people manipulate information to fit an existing narrative, is precisely the sort of behavior that contributes to the political environment we are living in today.
And this isn’t some new phenomenon. There have been people throughout human history who were absolutely convinced they knew better than everyone else while demonstrating very little ability to distinguish evidence from confirmation bias. You don’t become intellectually or morally superior simply because you’ve found a group of people you consider stupid. If anything, you’re demonstrating the exact same intellectual weakness from the opposite direction.
People are allowed to be idiots. That doesn’t make their idiocy representative of an entire political movement, and it certainly doesn’t make selectively presenting their behavior as evidence of a broader movement intellectually honest. If your argument depends on taking the most extreme people you can find and pretending they represent everyone else, then the problem isn’t the people you’re pointing at. It’s the methodology you’re using to make your point.
I’m not validating these positions by sharing the images. My point is that a lot of “news” is just this:
Well in that case I completely agree with you.
Those supposed fringe online reactions are being platformed on Fox News. It’s being put into mainstream discourse.
I have seen a significantly larger amount of discourse against women’s rights with this case than just a few fringe extremist accounts.
I mean yes… But the conjecture aside the fact stand on their own merits.
Kayfabe is alive and real. The mental hoops one has to jump through to believe this is staggering.
I’m not sure a guy who enjoys telling rape jokes is the one we should listen to on this subject.
Also - just realized you were OP.
Good work
Hi! Good to see you again. Been good since we last spoke? You warmed up to me last time and were the least hostile I had seen you.
I’m shocked your instance admins haven’t banned you yet.
Some people have more chill. Though your convictions are what make you fun. Even when they are misplaced.
My convictions that joking about raping people or asking for CSAM shouldn’t be tolerated here aren’t misplaced.
No - but thinking it was serious is.
Also I tried your move of reading through others comments. Do you want support in the AI glasses? Anyone who uses those is a corpo tool doing nothing beneficial. Camera phones are bad enough, let along glasses used to conceal what someone is up to.
Never mind the weekly family
annihilators who are not women and who never make the news. Same with any other issue about women. They don’t actually care unless they can exploit it to harm us while pretending otherwise.bad thing: 😐
bad thing, woman: well clearly this says a lot about women as a whole and they get a pass for everything and…
Sure but I’m sure if a man kills his wife and children they invite him to join.
Fucks sake this so messed up. Her husband did it, this Bullshit is what we call “sweeping under the rug”
This is such a dumb and obvious distraction. The only time an amendment has been repealed in 250 years of the USA is prohibition. You need 2/3 AND 75% of all states to ratify it, which is 38 of 50. Currently there are 15 “always blue” states (in recent years). Even then, all democrats will vote against it, and we’ve never had a supermajority of both the house and senate in the last 120 years and likely never will. The last time it came close was in 1930 with only 62% GOP.
This is just distracting the democrats while republicans are activity doing worse shit that is happening instead of “thinking about happening”. We need to stay vigilant on what’s possible and happening and what is a distraction and never happening.
They’re slowly eroding women’s rights. I was told to my face that Roe v Wade was never going to be overturned, that it was a distraction, that I was overreacting.
Maybe they won’t be able to strip women’s right to vote, but they’re doing everything they can to do so and they’ll be able to take some of our rights away in the interim. As a compromise.
