• 1 Post
  • 85 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: July 16th, 2023
  • Bamboodpanda@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world•Interesting
    30·
    11 days ago

    I was raised to love my neighbor, to respond to hate with compassion, to tell the truth even when it hurt. I was taught that these were Christian values and by extension, American ones. We were the country that believed in freedom of thought, the integrity of history, and moral courage.

    But now I see many of the same people who taught me those values embracing a movement built on denial, grievance, and revisionist history. They’ve tied themselves to a man who mocks truth, glorifies cruelty, and demands loyalty over integrity.

    And the saddest part? We used to look at other nations and say, “That could never happen here.” But it is happening here. And it’s not being forced on us, we’re choosing it.

    The cost of that betrayal isn’t some distant consequence we’ll face down the road. It’s already here. The values they abandoned didn’t slowly fade, they were cast aside, willingly, and replaced with something hollow. This isn’t a detour. It’s the destination. And the people who once preached righteousness have no intention of turning back.

  • Bamboodpanda@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.world•Naw it must be the vaccines
    1·
    21 days ago

    Yeah, that’s a totally fair concern and is one of the points the episode addresses. Researchers acknowledged that the definition has broadened, but they also emphasized that it reflects a better understanding of autism as a spectrum. It does make the label less specific, but it’s also helped a lot of people. Especially women and people of color. It helped them get more accurate diagnoses instead of being misdiagnosed or ignored.

    Overall, it’s a stat worth celebrating as it means more people are getting the support they needed all along.

  • Bamboodpanda@lemmy.worldtopolitics @lemmy.world•Florida Republican who almost died from ectopic pregnancy blames Democrats, not abortion ban
    27·
    23 days ago

    I read the WSJ article and she is absolutely infuriating. Her reasoning contains several fallacies:

    False Cause:

    “It was absolute fearmongering at its worst”

    She blames political messaging instead of considering that vague legal language created legitimate professional uncertainty.

    Straw Man:

    “There will be some comments like, ‘Well, thank God we have abortion services,’ even though what I went through wasn’t an abortion”

    This is particularly frustrating. Advocates aren’t celebrating her needing an “abortion”, they’re pointing out her experience is exactly what they predicted: doctors hesitating due to legal uncertainty. She had to argue with staff, pull up laws on her phone, and call the governor’s office during a medical emergency. That’s the system breakdown advocates warned about, not a misunderstanding of medical definitions.

    False Dilemma:

    “We have turned the conversation about women’s healthcare into two camps: pink hats and pink ribbons. It’s either breast cancer or abortion.”

    This drastically oversimplifies complex healthcare policy into just two opposing sides and the irony is staggering. It’s like a company ignoring safety advocates’ warnings about a confusing manual, then when accidents happen, blaming those advocates for ‘scaring’ workers instead of fixing the manual.

    She lived the very scenario abortion rights advocates had been warning about all along, yet somehow, in her mind, the problem isn’t the law, it’s the people who tried to stop it from hurting her in the first place.

  • Bamboodpanda@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world•I'm gonna mute this one
    1910·
    29 days ago

    I won’t defend Schumer’s choice here. It was a bad call, and the anger from House Democrats and the base was completely justified. You’re right that the party leadership sometimes folds when they should fight. They make strategic decisions that feel disconnected from the urgency the moment demands. And yes, Democrats have corporate-aligned figures who blunt the force of reform, but that is also a reality of our current system that we have to work within.

    But, sticking to your example, there is a key difference: when Democrats cave, it’s often to avoid causing harm, like a shutdown that would devastate working people. When Republicans cave, it’s to secure more tax cuts, more deregulation, and more authoritarian power. The intent and the outcome are not the same, even if the compromise leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.

    It also matters that Democrats have factions pushing from within. The anger from House Dems, from AOC, from the base, that’s real pressure that can move things. Republicans don’t have that kind of internal accountability. Their party punishes dissent and rewards obstruction.

    And while it’s easy to say “they always have excuses,” the reality is that even when Democrats had a trifecta in 2021, their margin in the Senate was literally 50-50. One or two bad actors (like Manchin or Sinema) could tank an entire agenda, and did. That’s not an excuse. That’s a math problem, and the only way around it is bigger, more engaged progressive coalitions.

    So yes, Schumer failed in that moment (and many others). Yes, we should be furious. But walking away or writing off the party entirely means handing power back to a movement that’s not just flawed. It’s actively hostile to democracy, human rights, and the planet. That’s not moral purity. That’s surrender.

  • Bamboodpanda@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world•I'm gonna mute this one
    13023·
    29 days ago

    I’m frustrated with the reflexive “both sides are equally bad” response that shuts down any meaningful analysis of what’s actually happening in our politics.

    I’m not naive about the Democratic Party’s problems. They struggle with internal divisions, sometimes cave to corporate pressure, and they’ve made compromises that disappointed their base. But when I look at voting records, policy proposals, and legislative priorities, I see meaningful differences that have real consequences for people’s lives.

    On issues I care about (healthcare access, climate action, voting rights, ext.) one party consistently proposes solutions and votes for them when they have the numbers. The other party doesn’t just oppose these policies, they fight tooth and nail to undermine them, delay them, or dismantle them entirely. That’s not a matter of opinion. That’s a matter of public record.

    When Democrats fail to deliver, it’s often because they lack sufficient majorities or face procedural roadblocks. When they do have power, they’ve passed significant legislation on infrastructure, climate investment, and healthcare expansion. Meanwhile, when Republicans have unified control, their priorities have been tax cuts for the wealthy and rolling back environmental protections.

    I understand the appeal of cynicism. It can feel sophisticated to dismiss all politicians as equally corrupt. But that cynicism serves the interests of those who benefit from the status quo.

    If you can’t tell the difference between someone trying to reform a broken system and someone actively working to keep it broken, you’re not offering insight. You’re providing cover for obstruction.

    Does this mean Democrats are perfect? Of course not. Should we hold them accountable when they fall short? Absolutely. But pretending there are no meaningful differences between the parties just because neither is perfect makes it harder to build the coalitions we need to create the change we actually want to see.