You bring up some good points, but I think that we do see that sometimes they do. Women vs. men is a great example. Men are incarcerated at extremely high rates and white men are incarcerated at far greater rates than any demographic group of women. They are far more likely to be victims of police violence or stop and frisk policies than women and largely speaking, conservatives don’t particularly care.
Similarly, they frequently do argue that all businesses have a right of refusal and that all religious liberties must be protected. For instance, the Alliance Defending Freedom (an ultra-conservative law group) defended Muslim prisoners’ right to grow a beard in prison in Holt v Hobbs.
As a whole, they aren’t against police surveillance of white nationalist groups. They also aren’t usually against birth control, they are against having to pay for it and would likely argue that they wouldn’t expect the government to pay for their condoms either.
Keeping in mind that there are subsets of the right that don’t follow those general guidelines, but the majority of the right does.
Speak for yourself, mentally healthy expert on everyone they don’t know.
I am not “bored to death” by politics, and neither is anyone else I know personally. We are terrified and despairing. We see our country ruled with triumph by the utterly despicable. How is that boring? How is it boring to watch what we have been so accustomed to believing as the greatest bastion of democracy and progress in the world plummet toward fascism?
If you are bored, you are clearly one of the very people who are part of the reason we despair. And if you think it is a small minority of fringe people who are despairing, furious, grieving, you simply could not be more wrong. If you want data, or photographs, just say so.
You are denying the reality that the law I cited was designed to, and does, specifically target minorities for disenfranchisement. It’s documented in email and ruled on by a court that that is what happened. You are, in fact, defending an explicitly racist law by claiming that it is not racially motivated, and that it has something to do instead with a collective vs individual viewpoint. You also made the false claim that conservatives do not tolerate laws that target minorities specifically, which is a defense of their position. But contrary to your assertion, I provided a clear, well-documented example that such laws are, in fact, tolerated and cheered by Republicans.
Not a good analogy. To be analagous with the law I mentioned, you’d need to have a situation where multiple people were able to defend by sitting at the rim with a variety of techniques, and the rule makers made a documented request for information about the races of which people use which technique for sitting at the rim, then issued a rule that only blocked the methods typically used for sitting at the rim by black people and allowed the ways typically used by white people, even though the way used by white people had more issues.
If you just block a particular technique that’s not in widespread use that you don’t want to see, like in your example, there’s clearly a non-racially-targetted explanation for it. But it’s different if you block only the techniques used predominately by blacks and not the ones used primarily by whites even though the one used primarily by whites has the causes the most trouble that you claim you’re trying to fix with the rule.
For some men, a dress is the clothing they feel right in. I get to wear clothing that feels correct to me, so why shouldn’t the hypothetical person in this example be allowed to?
OK, so, this person exists someplace, they are dressed in the way they find appropriate. Are they not allowed to simply exist in a “redneck bar”? Maybe a person making a “pretty strong political/cultural statement” is committing themselves to having to handle whatever reaction they provoke. But our hypothetical person here hasn’t said a word, they have merely walked in.
I think your post describes a place where certain people just aren’t allowed to exist. Minoritized people often experience this, from “driving while black” to hostile work environments to “why do they have to shove it in our faces”.
Part of the right-left divide is seeing this situation differently. Literally, about our hypothetical person - why is simply existing in a location a pretty strong statement?
While this has always been more or less true, it was much less so in the beginning, because the population distribution wasn’t nearly so uneven as it is today. The entire country was rural and nearly everyone worked at farming.
One problem I see with the left is that its “official” media outlets, e.g. Democracy Now are too often covering our foreign policy gaffes and interminable wars on the other side of the world, albeit justly, when at times like this I think they should concentrate on what’s happening right here. There’s nothing wrong with protesting the war, but it does little for the people at home who will be directly harmed by the loss of access to healthcare, effective unions, environmental protections, net neutrality, etc., etc., etc.