r/WhitePeopleTwitter 8d ago This 1 Helpful 6 All-Seeing Upvote 1 Take My Energy 1 Bravo! 3 LOVE! 1 Starstruck 1 To The Stars 1 Wholesome 1

Why stop there?

Post image
109.6k Upvotes

952

u/Panda_hat 8d ago

This is actually a really good way of phrasing it and I'd not thought about it like this before.

It's not about states 'rights' at all. It's about state authoritarianism.

272

u/KovyJackson 7d ago

States’ rights to tread on people.

94

u/Newfishtanker 7d ago

That's basically what the entire debate over the Constitution was about though, state power (to keep Slavery et al) vs. Federal power (to be able to exercise dominion over states).

60

u/KovyJackson 7d ago

Yeah. The failure of Articles of Confederation highlights the pitfalls of strong state governments and a weaker central government.

8

u/meatmachine1 7d ago

I don't know for sure, but I always thought the interpretation was that any right or power not specifically given to the federal government, or states, belonged to individual people by default.

4

u/Newfishtanker 7d ago

You're right. It's the 9th amendment applied to the states through the 14th amendment

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

26

u/kaise_bani 7d ago

Just like all the people who say the Civil War was about states’ rights. Ask them “states’ rights to do what?” and there’s never a good answer.

6

u/BXBXFVTT 7d ago

The south didn’t want the north to be able to harbor fugitive slaves either. So besides the states right to legal slavery they wanted to take power away from other states. It’s a sham from top to bottom

24

u/WonderfulShelter 7d ago

Exactly. States want to restrict the autonomy of your own body and prevent you from even having cognitive liberty, or freedom of exploring your own mind.

How insane is it that the majority of Americans support autonomy of your own body (abortion access) and also support legalizing cannabis (cognitive liberty) - yet our government actively is working to make sure we have neither?

This is pure authoritarianism through and through, and it's disgusting, and I hope nobody stands for it. Your government doesn't want to protect you; for it's perfectly legal to pick and eat poisonous mushrooms that will kill you, but it's illegal to pick and eat psychedelic mushrooms that can not kill you.

→ More replies

4

u/ncjdjdjfloof 7d ago

But they all take my tax money….. and tread on me

→ More replies

880

u/Craigmakin 8d ago

Where are all of the “don’t tread on me” folks at?

268

u/MinewtBol 8d ago

They’re all at In N Out

21

u/Hellbear 7d ago

Wow honestly I had no idea about in n out’s political leanings before today.

7

u/Acidflare1 7d ago

The Bible verses on the cups and wrappers weren’t an indicator?

7

u/Hellbear 7d ago

Truly Never noticed that.

→ More replies
→ More replies

228

u/BentoMan 8d ago

As a Political Compass Meme lurker, I can tell you most “don’t tread on me” people are actually authoritarian but libertarian for select issues. And the ones who are truly libertarian, they mention the non-aggression principle but once again that’s because they are male and it doesn’t affect them.

32

u/Mad5Milk 8d ago

Yeah, I would like to consider myself libertarian but everyone who uses that label is nuts. Is "don't be a dick for no reason" really such a hard rule to follow?

32

u/payne_train 7d ago

Historically, yea it is too much to ask. That’s why Libertarianism falls apart in practice. Dem socialism feels like the only viable path forward.

20

u/taronic 7d ago

I find it funny when people say that it only works in Europe, like y'know it only works in a fucking continent with tons of modern countries

→ More replies

4

u/Mad5Milk 7d ago

Makes sense

→ More replies

18

u/Zech08 7d ago

To add to that, dont negatively impact other people... freedom does not mean freedom to ruin someone else's.

You can be a dick, provided you are within your own area, affect no one else, and any lasting effects are contained/applied to only you.

6

u/taronic 7d ago

I really like the liberty half of the libertarian platform, but that's about it. I'm not one to say "they don't believe in taxes paying for roads" because most sane ones do, but that isn't to say I think the shit works: read about the libertarian paradise where they moved in to make a free city

Spoiler: simple shit laws and regulations like "don't feed the bears" breaks libertarianism pretty fucking hard. Maybe that was just a failed experiment, but it's kind of interesting what happened when a lot of libertarians got together and try to build a libertarian community. Basic services and regulations that they're missing become extremely obvious and problematic.

6

u/Beowulf1896 7d ago

We sometimes could use less regulation, but overall, certain things are far more necessary than any Libertarian I have talked to knows. Like the FDA. Do you like metal in your food? I don't. But I don't have time to make sure all my food is metal free. In addition, I have worked in the food production area. I didn't have time to make sure my suppliers didn't include metal. Or their suppliers, nor their suppliers suppliers. It would have been absolutely wasteful to have several private companies "inspecting" stuff.

75

u/JohnMaddenCPAP 8d ago

Don’t Tread on my Authoritarianism!

27

u/Hupf 7d ago

Respect my authoritah!

→ More replies

16

u/matt260204 7d ago

As the saying goes, libertarians are just Republicans who like to smoke weed

→ More replies

14

u/Ex_Why_ 8d ago

It affects them if they get their sister pregnant.

98

u/Capitalist_P-I-G 8d ago

As a reading human with a brain, anyone on PCM who isn’t right-authoritarian fell for and helps give a platform to right-authoritarian propaganda.

It’s a right wing sub masquerading as non-partisan to gain credibility and engagement that they can’t get from other more infamous subs.

41

u/Horrific_Necktie 7d ago

They will say alll day long that it's not true, and sandwhich it right in-between two memes making racism look lile a quirky lovable fault. "Oh those auth right rascals! How endearing"

19

u/payne_train 7d ago

Yeah that sub weirds me out. The vibes are awful.

15

u/Arsey56 7d ago

Yeah. I don’t know why people are want to be on a platform that legitimises actual fascism like that

→ More replies
→ More replies

14

u/jimmyhell 7d ago

Yeah, the right libertarians aren’t libertarian at all. They just trade state tyranny for corporate tyranny. They’re just republicans who like weed and are concerningly knowledgable about age of consent laws.

5

u/Beta_Soyboy_Cuck 7d ago

I always love seeing my coworkers wearing a thin blue line patch on their backpack right below their Gadsden flag patch.

→ More replies

13

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

10

u/Shroomydoggy 7d ago

Can the left reclaim don’t tread on me?

Don’t tread your conservative Christian values on me. 1st amendment protects my freedom of religion and to me that stands for freedom from religion if one so chooses.

Don’t tread on my gun rights. Guns have a place in America. Don’t tread on women’s rights, don’t tread on LGBTQ rights.

The GOP thinks that discriminating is a right but it is not, other than that their rights have not been trampled. They can still be politically incorrect all they want by right.

Don’t tread on me is an awesome revolutionary symbol. it has been co-opted by the wrong group. It stands for individualism and liberty. The left stands for individualism and liberty. Why did we let them convince themselves and others that the left doesn’t?

→ More replies

12

u/Gunzbngbng 8d ago

Most of them are hypocrites.

That said, the libertarian subreddits are constantly on fucking fire. And the libertarian party is very pro choice.

→ More replies

8

u/trivialmatters3 8d ago

they’re the ones doing the treading

→ More replies

3.7k

u/giraffeperv 8d ago

So I guess when they say “small government” they actually mean “small federal government, while allowing states to be authoritarian cesspools”

1.1k

u/LaughDull967 8d ago

It’s not really an opposition to the federal government having a lot of power. It’s about putting the power wherever they can turn it into an authoritarian cesspool.

They haven’t been able to turn the federal government into an authoritarian cesspool yet, so they don’t want it to have the power to prevent them from doing it on the state level.

81

u/Blue_water_dreams 8d ago

Conservatives: Having to wear a mask to protect me, my loved ones and society is literally tyranny.

Also conservatives: Being forced to carry a fetus to term for the state is totally cool.

→ More replies

429

u/hereforlolsandporn 8d ago

Absolutely about control. They can control the senate effectively because Wyoming has the same weight as California with like 1% the population. When the goal is to destabalize and not to govern, all they have to do is corrupt one chain in the link. Our founding fathers didn't conceive that an entire political party would attack the system and they left America vulnerable because of their trust and optimism.

557

u/LaughDull967 8d ago Gold All-Seeing Upvote This

Our founding fathers didn't conceive that an entire political party would attack the system…

They kind of did. The entire government was designed with the idea that some group would try to take over, and creating separate power centers that would (hopefully) oppose each other to prevent any one from gaining too much power. They wanted the three branches of government to oppose each other, and for the state and feral governments to oppose each other.

They (at least some of them) we’re also afraid of a two-party system, on the idea that it would become polarizing and one party might gain too much power. They wanted to have a bunch of different interests that would need to form coalitions. To some degree, they foresaw all of this.

However, the founding fathers were not a monolithic group that all agreed. They had to compromise with each other to get the Constitution signed. For example, they had to have the electoral college in order to appease salve states.

But they also didn’t necessarily expect things to be this stable for this long. What they were building was an experiment. They’d already had a failed government before writing the Constitution, and they expected the Constitution to be rewritten again. I don’t think they expected it to be treated as holy scripture for hundreds of years.

194

u/Fluid_Association_68 8d ago

What they didn’t envision was a cult becoming so large and powerful that it could easily infiltrate all three branches, and every state in the union.

318

u/LaughDull967 8d ago Gold

They did though. They feared it. They tried to set the government up in a way that would make it harder. But they weren’t able to figure out a way to make it impossible, and in fairness I don’t know that there is a way to make it impossible.

If people like Jefferson and Madison and Washington could time travel and see what the cult of Trump is doing, I don’t think their response would be, “we never could have imagined a political party trying to take power like this,” but more like, “this is exactly what we were afraid of.”

And they’d also probably be like, “why are you still talking about what we’d think and what we’d want, as though we’re some kind of gods? You’ve have hundreds of years of development, and you’re still using our old Constitution? What’s wrong with you people?”

180

u/artspar 8d ago Silver

To add on, the constitution used to be amended all the damn time. Hell, prohibition was an amendment, not a bill. It being viewed as sacred is a stronger opinion now than ever before

→ More replies

63

u/Cat_Marshal 8d ago

And we would respond, “fear not, we amended it. Women can vote now!”

51

u/Babka_Ramdev 8d ago

And Black, Indigenous, and People of Color!

(Though they kept it from us as long as they could, and are still trying)

23

u/PurfuitOfHappineff 8d ago

Your comment is too far down the thread to award but it’s worth gold, Jerry, GOLD.

28

u/thewordsofblake 8d ago

The way to make it impossible is to use the popular vote

We should be able to put literally anything to referendum, including or especially impeachment

Plain and simple, it really is that easy

43

u/Similar_Candidate789 7d ago

One state, I believe Arizona, does this and I love the idea. When a law is passed, a number of people can sign a petition to stop its enforcement and put it on a popular vote ballot. If it fails a popular vote, it dies.

I wish we could do this federally and in each state BUT differently. Every single item gets to a popular vote. Yeah you guys pass the laws, but we decide if they are going to exist or not. The ultimate check and balance.

More voting too. Every month. We have the technology now to be able to do so quickly and efficiently.

4

u/seattleforge 7d ago

We have a system similar to that in WA. When I moved here I thought it was a good idea. What it ends up doing is tying up the courts for decades with repetitive challenges by minorities. Several popular bills can’t come in to action because of it.

→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/Chipperhof 7d ago

This was really fun to read as someone who’s never thought that far into why the government is how it is.

→ More replies

12

u/SpeshellED 8d ago

Depp's trial all over the media. Abortion SCOTUS debate , which
directly effects million of women is secret behind closed doors.
Thomas is too stupid to realize how fucked up that is.

→ More replies

9

u/milk4all 8d ago

Jefferson would definitely understand what is happening and wouldnt wonder a thing. More like he’d make some rebukes and then pop back to his time pre constitution and use different language here and there so far as his contributions could affect

8

u/HavronEX 8d ago

I absolutely agree that I think the thing that would most surprise them would be how little we have changed the constitution since they formed it. Never would they imagine we would have enshrined it to the degree that we have.

→ More replies

10

u/kallekillen22 8d ago

What cult? Conservatives or christians?

→ More replies
→ More replies

19

u/poktanju 8d ago

salve states

King Aloe Vera

→ More replies

13

u/Nova225 8d ago

It also needs to be added that the Senate exists to be the opposite of the House of Representatives. When they made the Constitution, states like Rhode Island asked "Why should we sign into this? We have a lower population and less representation.". So the Senate was made in response, to give states some value of representation.

On another note, if we kept with the ratio, we should have like, 1000 more representatives in the house compared to where it is now.

→ More replies

7

u/Breet11 8d ago

It is, indeed, a feral government xD

48

u/BunnyOppai 8d ago

For the time, the EC kinda made sense, same thing for why electors don’t have to vote for who the state wanted. Nowadays, there’s literally not a single valid point for it.

44

u/LaughDull967 8d ago

It made sense when the point was to have electors choose the president, rather than having a popular vote. But also the Electoral College was designed to give extra power to slave states so they’d agree to the Constitution.

→ More replies

3

u/Beautiful-Advance-60 7d ago

They created the EC to stop a "clown" or power hungry fool from being elected by the "riff-raff" --- but the EC is just a rubber stamp and actually allowed exactly what it was supposed to prevent from happening happen!

→ More replies

15

u/Pika_Fox 8d ago

To be fair, we have a coalition party, the democratic party, and essentially a single interest extremist party, the republican party.

The issue is the extremist non coalition party has equal to more weight than the coalition. Remove republicans from existence as a party, and the system will fix itself most likely as the democratic party will split into its various factions, and each faction would have better room to grow and make its case before the public.

4

u/gassy_clown 7d ago

Yeah but then you have to convince people that voting for a centrist is actually better than voting for a fascist and that seems to be too confusing for a lot of people on this site.

7

u/Pika_Fox 7d ago

"The dems are just as bad, they couldnt even pass a bill to protect abortion!"

One dem voted against it. Every republican did.

BoTh PaRtIeS

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

12

u/Lobanium 8d ago

Exactly, if the federal government were 100% fascist, they'd be all for big federal government.

→ More replies

11

u/Derivative_Kebab 8d ago

Mitch McConnell basically admitted that they're hoping to ban abortion at the federal level as soon as possible. So yes, the "states rights" argument is a thin veneer, as per usual. They're fine with imposing their will on liberal states.

26

u/ConThePc 8d ago

exactly - states rights are only important to conservatives when they can't enforce their beliefs on a federal level. Civil rights protected by feds now? well, it should be a states right to determine that. Abortion is now federally protected? It should be a states right to determine that.

38

u/LaughDull967 8d ago

I think a good example is, when Democrats have tried to have better gun control, Republicans argued, “This decision should be left to state and local governments. The rules that work in your liberal cities don’t make sense in the rural areas.” And I don’t totally agree with that, but sure, there’s something to the idea.

But then they’ve blocked gun control, reversed gun control, made it easier for anyone to get a gun and carry it around. And now Republicans have started pushing for the federal government to force states to accept the gun rules from other states. Like if you have a concealed carry permit in one state, they want all states to have to accept that permit and let you carry a concealed gun everywhere. Suddenly, “this decision should be left to state and local governments,” isn’t good enough anymore, the federal government is supposed to force states to let people carry guns. The idea that, “the rules that work in your liberal cities don’t make sense in the rural areas,” apparently isn’t true anymore, because cities need to be forced to live by the rules of rural areas.

And that’s how Republicanism works. There are no principles, and no freedom to let anyone make their own decisions. It’s all about using whatever reasoning or strategy that will let you have power over others.

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/PeachCream81 8d ago

It’s not really an opposition to the federal government having a lot of power.

Actually, I think the old Confederate States are still pissed off over the outcome of the Civil War and really just want their slaves, plantations, and way of live ("moonbeams & magnolias") back. So yeah, States Rights is their mantra.

In an ironic twist of history: the Confederacy may have lost the 1st Civil War but might wind up triumphing in the current (2nd) Civil War.

→ More replies
→ More replies

36

u/lexbuck 8d ago edited 8d ago

Small government rhetoric only applies for the GOP when it’s something they don’t agree with. When it’s something they are all in on, they are absolutely for government being very big and right up your ass

→ More replies

111

u/ILikeSugarCookies 8d ago

I know this to be patently true for a brief time living in Texas. Any time a city in Texas tries to pass legislation to better itself, Governor Shithead has tried almost immediately calling a special session to pass state legislation making that city legislation illegal.

The GOP LOVE government overreach.

33

u/giraffeperv 8d ago

I’ve noticed the same thing in Missouri. Red state governments hate the cities because they’re a threat to their rule.

7

u/pchc_lx 8d ago

Austin

5

u/edoreinn 8d ago

I lived in Houston from the end of 2019 to just after the election in 2020. It was fucking EXHAUSTING trying to keep up with which laws outweighed the others.

→ More replies

12

u/horkley 8d ago

“Small government” means the largest government Republicans can have where they have absolute control.

It happens to be the state.

So if a municipality or political subdivision wants to do something, in say Texas, even if that local branch of government is Republican, the state of Texas forces its totalitarian will upon it.

11

u/The_Scyther1 8d ago

The GOP is a lot like Libertarians. They don’t want a small or nonexistent Government they just personally want to be above the law. The law should allow them to sell poison while stopping others from being able to sell it to them. The role of law is to protect their personal interests and nothing more.

10

u/Kuritos 8d ago

Smells like Confederacy.

→ More replies

8

u/CutieL 8d ago

Yes! I've been trying to find a way to express that idea to some people I've talked to, but I guess I am not as bright as the person behind the tweet lmao

12

u/watchtoweryvr 8d ago

I think she borrowed this from Trevor Noah.

→ More replies

8

u/EmCeeSlickyD 8d ago

Only when they agree with the cesspool though. They don't like when California flexes their own state rights for example.

19

u/AnonAmbientLight 8d ago edited 7d ago

Much like the Nazis, Republicans will claim they are for something (that is generally popular) but then do the exact opposite when they have the power to do it.

Like in this case, where they claim they are for "small government" but then do things like ban books, attack companies for going against the party policy, or in this case regulating a medical choice between a woman and her doctor.

7

u/giraffeperv 8d ago

I have a theory that every single Republican stance can be contradicted by another stance. I listen to what they say and do and think “there’s no way this is gonna slide, right?” And then somehow their supporters just get more supportive.

→ More replies

7

u/rices4212 8d ago

What's funny is that the "small" state governments today that they feel are closer to the original ideas of the constitution are mostly larger than the entire federal government of the 18th century. So the idea of the state governments being small govt is ridiculous to begin with. Plus they're heavily gerrymandered to keep the "right" party in power, giving more actual authoritarian control than the founders would have imagined

6

u/Anyna-Meatall 8d ago

No, when they say "small government" they actually mean "I'm selfish and don't want to pay taxes."

It's amazing how everything falls into place makes sense, when you realize that the cons say things only to steal power.

→ More replies

6

u/Kooky-Answer 8d ago

So I guess when they say “small government” they actually mean “small federal government, while allowing states to be authoritarian cesspools”

More like "small government when it effects me, big government for anyone I disagree with"

18

u/SnooOnions1428 8d ago

Right wingers have been for "small government" ever since they've lost their slaves

13

u/giraffeperv 8d ago

I moved to a city in Missouri and someone said to me “that’s as far north as you can go and still be in Dixie.” Like.. what does that matter in 2022?

5

u/GoblinoidToad 7d ago

But not before with the Fugitive Slave Act.

4

u/Gr1pp717 8d ago edited 8d ago

"Small government" is bullshit. Republicans/conservatives are only small government when it pleases them.

I've come to see it like so:
individual vs community/culture vs corporation.

The left rarely accept a loss of individual liberty for the sake of community, and virtually never for the sake of corps. The right is the inverse: rarely forsaking corp rights for the community and virtually never for the individual. (american libertarians pretend that individual == corporation, ultimately skewing right while believing that they're skewing left.)

Sexuality/gender?
Left: individual rights
Right: protect community/culture

Drugs?
Left: individual rights (decriminalize, provide therapy)
Right: protect community ("tough on crime")

Abortion/contraceptives?
Left: individual
Right: community (defund planned parenthood, prevent insurance from covering contraceptives, etc)

Labor laws?
Left: individual/community (protect from corps)
Right: corp (will even forsake community in favor of corp: child labor, anti-union, environmental, discrimination, etc -- unless it's against them, like banning disinformation or facemasks, but they blame the government for those things.)

Immigration?
Left: individual ("consider the")
Right: culture

Language/religion?
Left: individual
Right: culture (english legally required, ban islam)

Education?
Left: individual (teach all sides, let the individual decide what they believe)
Right: community (restrict what's taught, push christianity) ++ corp (private, for-profit education only, defund libraries, "I shouldn't have to pay for other people's kids")

Healthcare?
Left: individual/community
Right: corp

Some exceptions:
Vaccine?
Left: community
Right: individual/corp

Taxes?
Left: community
Right: individual/corp (unless it's for the military, then they're totally community.)

.... I could go on, but I'm sure that's more than enough to make my point. And don't get me started on "fiscally conservative" that's bullshit, too.

18

u/TheNetherOne 8d ago

We shall desolve the Senate and place the individual governors in direct control of their star systems and use the death star to keep ...wait i might be thinking of something different

3

u/prof_mcquack 8d ago

It’s funny that all the states where the “sanctity of life” is supposed to be “protected” by abortion bans are the same states where you’re more likely to be raped and murdered by the actual police than the police are to solve your rape or murder. Murder of adult humans is essentially legal in Florida and Texas as long as their families are too poor for a PI or for the cops to care.

3

u/giraffeperv 8d ago

Interesting how they pretty much all still have the death penalty too. And some are discussing using it as a punishment for abortion. It blows my mind.

3

u/gigibuffoon 8d ago

They want it at the state level because the way our election maps are setup, the conservatives have enormous sway at the state levels for most states... even most swing states have a republican legislature where they can be as authoritarian, misogynistic and racist as they'd like

3

u/berael 8d ago

"Small government" always means "very little governing me, and I completely govern you".

3

u/subject_deleted 8d ago

I think they've been unabashed and unapologetic about that obvious desire.

3

u/timetostepoutside 8d ago edited 7d ago

"Small enough government so that I can still oppress minorities and women"

→ More replies

3

u/gmotelet 8d ago

Small government for me, totalitarianism for thee

3

u/Captain_Stairs 8d ago

Or: Freedom! But not that, or that, or that, or that, or that, or that needs a boundary. 😤 🙃

→ More replies

523

u/Zealousideal-Wave-69 8d ago

Some people also say if you don’t like the abortion laws in your state, move to another. Apparently every woman in the US is a millionaire and can move wherever they like.

260

u/Dickiedoandthedonts 8d ago

Or like grown women are the only ones who get pregnant. How’s are teenagers supposed to up and move to another state?

171

u/Bundesclown 8d ago

They obviously shouldn't have had sex. We all know you can't be a good person if you have sex for fun. Unless you're a rich white guy who pays porn stars to fuck them while their 3rd wife is recovering from giving birth.

16

u/InVodkaVeritas 7d ago

With Trump as their leader, their ability to argue morals is like trying to carry water in a colander.

→ More replies
→ More replies

36

u/DaBozz88 8d ago

Could you imagine if all of the women in an entire state did just decide to leave?

18

u/RustyMacbeth 8d ago

I think a red-state sex strike is in order.

4

u/Delay_Defiant 7d ago

I think it's wild that this isn't a thing yet. I get that not every woman would participate but 6 months of a sizable group doing this would have massive effects. There's so many sex toys out there now and so much porn. It should be trivial to accomplish. All this awful stuff is like 95% white cis men and white cis men wouldn't handle rejection by dozens of women well over long periods of time.

54

u/DiligentTemporary109 8d ago

My argument is since we can fly all over the world to liberate people we can start in our own back yard

Every c17 should be on Texas runway ready to evacuate women from which I class as a failed state to some where that upholds the values of our constitution not the values of someone's fruit cakes beliefs

It honestly scares the shit out of ne how close these religious fruit cakes are to supersededing the constitution

And even worse the fact we vant even agree to wear face masks

25

u/Ann_Summers 8d ago

But we can’t evacuate underaged minors. And they have the least amount of rights than anyone and could be in potentially the most danger. They can’t move or leave or get on a plane. If they do anyone helping them is breaking federal law by moving a minor across state lines without parental consent. There is going to be so many teenage mothers soon. The red states will see to it.

→ More replies
→ More replies

53

u/Angry-Comerials 8d ago

Could you imagine if it happened though? Like if all the red states had like 20% of the women? They would start making laws to get women back in those states to get marriage rates up for them.

49

u/Ann_Summers 8d ago

They’d just fuck teenage girls like they’ve been doing anyway.

28

u/trwawy05312015 8d ago

Or they’d pull an Ancient Rome and just steal them from neighboring prosperous states.

25

u/Athleco 8d ago

They would make it a felony for women to leave the state and send male newborns to Mexico.

13

u/trivialmatters3 8d ago

yeah maybe laws like women cannot leave the state without permission of a husband or father, not anything that might be like good for women

10

u/foomits 8d ago

I know it's unlikely, but I would love to see healthcare professions start relocating out of these backwards states.

→ More replies
→ More replies

10

u/TheMaskedGeode 8d ago

Moving away is exactly what they want. They win if no one opposes them.

9

u/fruit_meat 8d ago

They know this but can't quite get away with saying "Women are property," so they spew nonsense like that to suggest the illusion of choice. They are fully aware that most people do not have that luxury because it's by design.

3

u/ImTryinDammit 7d ago

Texass makes it illegal to move more than one county away from a co-parent. It’s part of child support and visitation rights.

→ More replies

620

u/Katem8600 8d ago

Exactly!

This overturning of Roe is the first time SCOTUS is overturning a long held precedent that protected the rights of individuals.

317

u/zuzg 8d ago

Showing how the right can easily take away hard earned rights.

83

u/8orn2hul4 8d ago

Bbbbbut that the side that says “freedom” a lot!?!?! And now you’re telling me they’re actually making people less free?!?!? What???

→ More replies

129

u/thebrose69 8d ago

Nah nah. The right gets their rights, everyone else gets what’s ‘left’(over)

→ More replies
→ More replies

513

u/DertHorsBoi 8d ago

Woah woah! Lets slow down a bit! It’s too fast for them!

For legal reasons I must conclude this is in fact a /j moment

76

u/droomph 8d ago

I know the South operates slower than the rest of us but can they at least catch up to 509 BC some time soon? It’s getting a bit ridiculous

50

u/buckyandsmacky4evr 8d ago

There are people down here who believe the earth is 6000 years old, and that fossils are lies. It's not an issue of speed, it's an issue of willful ignorance

37

u/theresamouseinmyhous 8d ago

I'm in the south but my family is from the sticks in the north and let me tell you, this is not just a southern problem. At this point I don't even think it's primarily a southern problem. Conservatism and fundamentalism happens all over the country, and my northern liberal relatives rest pretty heavily on "the south needs to get their shit together," while they are outnumbered 10 to 1 by conservative cousins.

It's not a southern problem, it's an American problem.

4

u/stringfree 8d ago

The internet was a giant fan, and we let people throw their shitty ideas into it.

6

u/theresamouseinmyhous 8d ago edited 8d ago

Nah man, it was even before that. Up where my folks are from they still had the klan, but they didn't have any black people so they just hated Catholics.

Hate isn't a southern problem. Never has been. It's all over the place.

7

u/buckyandsmacky4evr 8d ago

You are so, so right. We have a whole segment of the population who truly thinks their perception should dictate other's reality. They think their perception IS objective reality

→ More replies

17

u/planet9pluto 8d ago edited 8d ago

I've long held the opinion that if you publicly advocate for an anti-science opinion, you should be denied the benefits of said opinion. Don't believe in evolution? Then no medicine that has been developed in the last 50 years for you. The earth is flat? Then no plane rides, cell phones or anything else that uses satellites.

13

u/stringfree 8d ago

And you definitely can't cherrypick arguments from scientists to support your reality fan fiction.

Want to argue evolution isn't real? Then you can't use the word DNA, or carbon dating, because that's data provided by the same people you're calling liars.

→ More replies

21

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/DaDanDangerous 8d ago

Already gone, it seems. How’d you know?

→ More replies
→ More replies

936

u/Dry-Sorbet-8379 8d ago edited 7d ago Take My Energy

I always ask “should we have done the same with segregation?”

Or women’s rights

Usually they just respond “those are different”

*oh, look! A bunch of people saying “those are different”

325

u/Pixilatedlemon 8d ago

Usually they respond yes to me on those. You’re talking to some pretty tame fuckheads

83

u/weedbeads 7d ago

It's easy to bite a bullet that you will never see play out in reality

77

u/superiority_bot 7d ago

I never thought we'd see the overturn of roe v wade play out in reality. Or an attempt to lynch the vice president in the capital building. Or calling into question germ theory. Or an elected official blaming wildfires on Jewish space lasers.

Yet here we are.

25

u/Religionbedumb 7d ago

This is what religion brings us. Lots of stupid stupid people.

→ More replies
→ More replies

4

u/bespectacledbengal 7d ago

Like when you’re discussing limits on what types of firearms people should be able to own outside of a “well regulated militia” and they claim to be completely fine with anyone being able to buy a Davy Crockett nuclear-tipped rocket launcher.

…as if school shooting weren’t bad enough as-is.

→ More replies
→ More replies

128

u/facw00 8d ago

A friend of mine who has an interracial marriage says that the legality of interracial marriage should be left up to the states. I hope leopards don't eat his face.

29

u/Eldergoth 7d ago

My brother in law is in an interracial marriage and believes the same thing. He might not want to leave Illinois.

23

u/DervishSkater 7d ago

Does he know that he’s only saying that because he has the safety of Illinois? Is he dumb or just a hypocrite?

11

u/Sunretea 7d ago

To answer the second question for them... Yes.

→ More replies
→ More replies

48

u/daft_ish 8d ago

Well I mean, as long as its not 'his' state cause, come on man, who the fuck cares about anyone else?

7

u/Diarygirl 7d ago

That seems crazy to me. I can't imagine not having my marriage legal in some states.

→ More replies

17

u/deterell 7d ago

Nah, you need to ask about something they actually care about, like gun rights.

4

u/Dry-Sorbet-8379 7d ago

I’d think that would hurt or derail the argument.

Because then they can point to gun free zones and various gun laws and say “but they already do it by state/county/city”

→ More replies
→ More replies

32

u/dog_fart_tacos 8d ago

They don't want to leave it to the states. They want to leave it to a level of government they can easily control. They captured the Supreme Court. Unless people drastically change where they want to live, they've also locked up the Senate for the foreseeable future, which also makes it increasingly likely that they will lock up the Presidency. "Leaving it to the states" is just a convenient unit of control.

21

u/Gemstyle96 8d ago

Small government only applies if you makes the choices I want. Remember forcing mask mandates were taking away freedom of choice, so they forced people to not wear masks also taking away freedom of choice.

21

u/It_is_I_Satan 8d ago

Because then Christians wouldn't be getting to impose their will on everyone else. Can't have that.

→ More replies

19

u/IITribunalII 8d ago

We live in a world where so many people are concerned by other people's personal choices. Simply ridiculous.

15

u/scionvriver 7d ago

Why stop there leave it up to the unbornt fetus. I promise most of them don't want to be bornt into object poverty or to a parent who's just going to hate them.

→ More replies

38

u/OneX32 8d ago

I have always believed that the correct role for the state in one's health choices that have no effect on others' health is the same as a medical curtain in a crowded ER. Anything behind that curtain should remain solely between you and your medical providers. Just like attorney-client privilege, the state should have no right in obtaining information about personal health choices that doesn't directly harm others. That would include abortion services, as the state shouldn't even be able to know until the fetus is viable outside of the womb that a woman sought an abortion. The state has no right to pull back that curtain if you aren't a danger to any other's health.

22

u/ProductivityMonster 8d ago

well that's just the thing. From their perspective, it does harm "others", namely the unborn fetus.

7

u/GingerRazz 8d ago

Hoping you don't get downvotes for this. It's just a statement of fact, but I suspect you'll get downvotes because people will assume you agree and people generally just want to starwman the other side rather than engage in difficult philosophical and moral concepts.

5

u/OneX32 8d ago

Than they can argue that in court using modern scientific evidence and that’s why I said when the fetus is viable outside the womb.

→ More replies

9

u/butteryspoink 8d ago

But that would mean respecting the rights of women and minorities. Next thing you know, neighborhood is gone.

/s

→ More replies

107

u/chicagotodetroit 8d ago

What’s weird is when people take other people’s statements and pass it off as their own.

I just watched Trevor Noah say that this morning almost word for word on a clip of his show.

30

u/JBob130 8d ago

it's possible for different people to come with with similar ideas. I have already been making the same argument and I don't watch Trevor Noah or have the ability to see the future

→ More replies

11

u/get-crisis-help 8d ago

...because its an incredibly obvious line of thought. conservatives act like this is taking power away from the govt when in fact its taking power from the people and handing it to the govt.

its another example of conservatives not giving a shit about principles as long as they get their way.

eventually this "system" of bad faith authoritarianism is going come back and bite them in the ass, and it's going to be just like the "they're hurting the wrong people" trump maga fuckheads. they'll be surprised pikachu when its used against them by the more hardline conservatives. we're already getting to the point that if you're not MAGA enough you get cast out from the republican party. wait until they start eating each other with this shit.

→ More replies

9

u/Paperchase2017 7d ago

Why not go the opposite direction too!? Let's force other countries to ban abortion. We can just invade and use our weapons and bibles to change their minds. We'll wipe out any country that refuses to conform. It is God's will.

Jesus christ that was hard to even type. Fucking kill religion already.

8

u/Severe-Way-7791 7d ago

Funny how Republicans want less govt to interfere with their wants, but they want full control of everyone elses lives....

7

u/Senior-Humor8523 8d ago

The right is terrified of individuals having that much power

6

u/broccolisprout 8d ago

Specifically the individuals who aren’t white christian heterosexual men.

3

u/Senior-Humor8523 7d ago

Considering said Hetero white men only support other hetero white men

6

u/Pika_Fox 8d ago

Because without states rights, how would we ever own slaves?!

35

u/CraWol 8d ago

Are you guys fucking real? Of all the things that is going on and US is talking about fucking abortions? Why would you try to fucking ban it? Even fucking third world radical backward islamist countries have them although they are limited. Like there are things called rapes and shit. What kind of lunatic or a caveman you must be to think abortion is a bad thing?

I assume republicans are the ones babbling this shit? I mean at this point right, Taliban is more progressive and mentally stable than they are jesus christ.

20

u/Its0nlyRocketScience 8d ago

Yes. We have a Supreme Court case in the US, Roe vs. Wade, which ruled that, for the entire country, no state can outlaw abortions. Well, that never turned into an actual law, so now the Supreme Court, with new, Trump-elected justices, is overturning that case and giving states the ability to control women's bodies.

People are going to die because of lack of medical care, and their blood will be on the hands of the Supreme Court and our legislature that has failed to secure the right to an abortion as a law.

→ More replies

5

u/Rides_De_Shortbus 8d ago

Sure would be great to live in a society where we respected one another enough to actually have real individual liberty. Instead we're stuck trading absolute power back and forth between total authoritarians that basically just view us as livestock.

→ More replies

6

u/wtfwtfwtfwtf2022 8d ago

The Supreme Court is supposed to protect basic human rights. It’s one of its main jobs. It has lost all credibility with Alito’s leak.

→ More replies

6

u/crazzyassbtich 7d ago

You have to realize conservatives want big government and they want government involved right into your body.

→ More replies

5

u/oregonisms_ 7d ago

she took this from trevor noah lol

4

u/splifflittle 7d ago

She watches Trevor Noah

6

u/mrweatherbeef 7d ago

Actually one of the best arguments I’ve seen in a long time.

→ More replies

48

u/NookinFutz 8d ago

This came from Trevor Noah on the Comedy Show -- with no acknowledgement. Just a FYI. https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1525144840165466112

Word for word.

3

u/HeavenIsOtherDogs 8d ago edited 7d ago

Timestamp on the posts tweet is 7:39am on the 12th, timestamp on that Daily Show tweet is 12:04am on the 13th. 16 hour difference. I haven't watched the Daily Show since Stewart left but unless they wait 25 hours to post clips DS was 2nd.

edit: relevant article https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/17/528680860/can-you-copyright-your-dumb-joke-and-how-can-you-prove-its-yours

5

u/NookinFutz 8d ago

Sorry you haven't watched, Trevor has been knocking it out nightly.

What's the timestamp on the show when it aired, not the tweet? No show tweets before the show, the highlights are always after.

→ More replies
→ More replies

4

u/TigerUSF 8d ago

Leave it to HOAs.

Jk.

4

u/Small_Brained_Bear 8d ago

But this infringes upon the rights of Karens to mind other people’s business.

6

u/DumpsterFireInHell 8d ago

Why don't we leave medical decisions up to individuals and their doctors? Because the U. S. is, and always has been, a thinly veiled theocratic corporatocracy, masquarading as a constitutional republic

3

u/RandomCoolzip2 7d ago

Leave fundamental freedoms up to the jerks, demagogues, and corrupt political hacks who frequent state legislatures? I don't think so.

3

u/PattyIce32 7d ago

The biggest thing that I cannot understand about these people is *why do you care about someone else's body??" Even if you truly believe that life begins at conception, why do you care about someone else's child??

And then if you do care about children that much, please tell me you teach or tutor or volunteer or are a good parent, etc.....o you aren't? What a surprise.

It's religious cultists trying to get uneducated scared people to join their ranks and give them power. It sucks how awesome America could be but is being corrupted by a dying institution.

4

u/Doctordred 7d ago

"Yeah we should let states decide these things!"

remembers that Texas exists

"Actually nevermind that is a terrible idea."

3

u/Ngoscope 7d ago

What a novel idea. We have states right so why not have human rights?

4

u/GingerIsTheBestSpice 7d ago

Dang I'm going to try to remember this argument.

→ More replies

3

u/rent1985 7d ago

Like there will be states with no abortion laws, but what's to stop counties from regulating it when state laws are absent?

5

u/AutoManoPeeing 7d ago

This is why I hate the vast majority of people who talk about "states' rights." It's almost always a cop out for limiting individual freedom. Bonus meme: Confederate simps talking about how the Civil War was about states' rights.

→ More replies

3

u/BlinBoiDima 8d ago

Why exactly did America start developing backwards?

→ More replies

3

u/QWEDSA159753 8d ago

Lol, except when the GQP is in charge, then the turtle says federal ban, so I guess it was never a state thing either.

3

u/SnooHamsters3520 8d ago

and they call US - the land of freedom

3

u/Decafhouse 8d ago edited 8d ago

Letting the states decide will ultimately be the last thing Anti-choice people want to happen. So long as this is a wedge issue that polarizes people into two camps on a national level, they have their momentum and their movement. If you let states decide, you'd settle the issue such that there is no more reproach, nothing to react to and it would leave the national sphere of debate.

To further that, I do not believe Republican nor Democrat establishment would wish for that to happen. It really is such a hot-button issue that we can totally see the political strategy that the abortion debate allows for both parties. If they couldn't wave this flag every few months, they'd actually have to focus on more pressing issues that inevitably show their scheming and incompetent governance of American problems. No more radical christian diatribes from the right, no more pro-women campaigning from the left. They'd actually have to address things like healthcare, debt, corruption, and the underlying inequality they actively support.

→ More replies

3

u/FortunateInsanity 8d ago

This would be a great idea if she would have at least given Trever Noah credit for that quote.

3

u/SinnerStar 8d ago

I know it takes 2 but

This should be debated and decided on by women only, religion and politics have absolutely no place in this debate as both are twisted by their followers to suit their point of view.

3

u/freeradicalx 8d ago edited 8d ago

Ironically if it were left up to neighborhoods the US would probably have better overall abortion protections than it does right now. Neighborhood assemblies are almost always run on consensus due to their manageable size, good luck getting abortion ban consensus past the 50%+ of your assembly who are probably never ever going to consent to that simply due to their biology. And remember!: The anti-abortion agenda didn't originate in communities! It originated in a strategic national-level conspiracy by conservative leadership.

3

u/GODDESS_OF_CRINGE__ 8d ago

It really does show the hypocrisy of fighting for "state's rights", which was just as much a dog whistle for supporting slavery in the past as it is for justifying banning abortion now.

→ More replies

3

u/Cebo494 7d ago

I would be much more comfortable with leaving more things to the states if people actually had a choice in where they live. If housing and transportation weren't both such big issues in this country, people could actually just leave bad places and move to better places. There could be a sort of free market of government policies and more municipalities could experiment with new policy.

But currently, minors and most non-wealthy people simply do not have the agency to move somewhere else, so you have to bring the protections to them and not leave it to the states.