If the American Government spent half the energy on improving the lives of the working class that the American Government spend on fucking over governments and working class people, globally, the American working class would have a utopia by now. Or at least less lead in our pipes.
FTFY
To add; Having indigenous or African ancestry doesn't automatically protect you from adopting white supremacist beliefs
The BLM stuff moved a lot of minorities (Asians and others) away from the left
Can you expand on this? I haven't stumbled upon this before
Racism is still free speech which sucks but the alternative is high censorship and fear
This is incorrect, and only serves those who target marginalized groups.
I wanna make it very clear that the conclusion that restriction of hate speech is a slippery slope for freedom of speech is not a given or universally held position
You can absolutely introduce laws prohibiting hate speech without introducing high censorship or fear. Many countries have laws prohibiting hate speech, including most European countries and a majority of, what Wikipedia calls, developed democracies.
Even countries that don't have limits for hate inducing speech towards marginalized groups, with reference to the importance of freedom of speech, rarely have complete freedom of speech.
As an example, the US limits to freedom of speech include "fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising."
The claim that intolerance to intolerance is dangerous, only serves the spread of intolerance.
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.
Rosenfeld contrasts the approach to hate speech between Western European democracies and the United States, pointing out that among Western European nations, extremely intolerant or fringe political materials (e.g. Holocaust denial) are characterized as inherently socially disruptive, and are subject to legal constraints on their circulation as such,[13] while the US has ruled that such materials are protected by the principle of freedom of speech and cannot be restricted, except when endorsements of violence or other illegal activities are made explicit.
Scandinavian colonizer
I disagree that the difference is the perception of alive
It's possible to both hold on to the inherent value of human life and make space to grieve abortions, AND prioritize the physical and mental wellbeing of the women who (for whatever reason) can't or won't go through a pregnancy, adoption and/or being a parent
Even with the assumption that a fetus is human and alive, it is important to acknowledge how horrific and traumatic it can be to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term
The realities of pregnancy is still quite taboo, so many aren't aware of the medical risks, physical strain, bodily changes and risk of death that can be involved with pregnancy and birth.
Reminder that marginalized people also experience higher maternal and newborn mortality, and childbirth and pregnancy has higher risks if you're for example poor, black or both
It's one thing to choose to go through nine months of bodily changes, an invasive medical precedure like birth, and recovery willingly. It's another to go through it against your will.
Abortion rights very much comes down to the discussion of who's rights, wellbeing and bodily autonomy comes first. The unborn child or the woman and the body carrying the child. As well as who has more right to a future of their choosing.
On top of that, there's the important conversations of the future lives for both the unwanted child and parents, and the socioeconomic issues. Both in terms of the rich always having access to abortions, regardless of laws and general accessibility, so that poor and disenfranchised people overwhelmingly are the ones affected when pregnancies are forced to be carried to term. As well as how our system is set up so many unwanted kids grow up in poverty. And just.. The questions about what qualifies well or badly suited parents, and what kind of life an unwanted child is gonna have.
Reducing abortion rights to the dehumanization of fetuses is missing the crux of the problem. Additionally, that reduction is part of the reason too many men who are careless, bordering on callus, when it comes to safe sex, cause they view the "removal of a bunch of non-alive cells" to be "no big deal", ignorant to the impact both pregnancy, abortion and birth can have on women's body and mind. As well as a potential child, of course, and not having to battle with the moral dilemma if human life and giving side for what could have been
There are people in my life who've had abortions, and people who chose to carry to term. It cannot be overrated how undeniably life-changing a child is - good and bad. It's a massive, life long responsibility, that should not be taken lightly. For people who aren't ready for that... I don't wish that for anyone.
Tl;Dr Even with the presumption that life begins at conception, access to abortion is vital