The aggravating thing is, I think there’s a few niche subjects where “states rights” is a perfectly valid thing to wish to enforce. There is a decent argument that transgender rights are better handled on a local level, where it can be informed by the direct experiences of the 1-10 individuals they actually affect. Yet the Republican flagpole around states rights has used it for racism, cronyism, and oppressing women.
Yes, that is my preferred ideal - but human rights can also be fought at the federal level!
If we accept for the moment that there are ghouls looking to oppress people, creating sanctuaries people can run to ends up having value. That’s where pro-immigrant states, pro-abortion states, and pro-trans states provide value in their existence, even if the ideal would be to protect everyone everywhere.
I’m also just admitting at what gets easier to argue. People resist laws to cater to a group if they’ve just never seen or heard of any members of that group. Much of the evil “success” on Trans Panic laws has been because the voting population only knows of those people through slanderous attack ads. But if the decisionmaking happens in one school county that knows the 2-3 students affected, the votes are more human.
“States rights” is never specific because it’s talking about state’s right to own people, or segregate, or other racist things. If it’s for something good then you just say what you’re actually wanting to do.
Yes, because you’ve always seen it used by the Republican Party.
Over the course of decades, the “pet causes” associated to each political party has shifted a lot. We think of them as a constant but not so much.
I fully agree with the “States’ rights to do what??” memes, based on how Republicans dogwhistle it. Realistically though, if there can be some basic faith that the person asking for a particular “states right” is not a horrible person, they can have some decent points to it.
I totally agree with giving states more control. The thing is, if I’m ever discussing it, I’m not going to be as vague as “states rights”. That’s my point. It’s not that the argument is bad, but that the only reason to be vague is to conceal the true intent.
The aggravating thing is, I think there’s a few niche subjects where “states rights” is a perfectly valid thing to wish to enforce. There is a decent argument that transgender rights are better handled on a local level, where it can be informed by the direct experiences of the 1-10 individuals they actually affect. Yet the Republican flagpole around states rights has used it for racism, cronyism, and oppressing women.
Human rights should be protected at the federal level.
You’re arguing that Mississippi should decide how to handle segregation laws.
Yes, that is my preferred ideal - but human rights can also be fought at the federal level!
If we accept for the moment that there are ghouls looking to oppress people, creating sanctuaries people can run to ends up having value. That’s where pro-immigrant states, pro-abortion states, and pro-trans states provide value in their existence, even if the ideal would be to protect everyone everywhere.
I’m also just admitting at what gets easier to argue. People resist laws to cater to a group if they’ve just never seen or heard of any members of that group. Much of the evil “success” on Trans Panic laws has been because the voting population only knows of those people through slanderous attack ads. But if the decisionmaking happens in one school county that knows the 2-3 students affected, the votes are more human.
“States rights” is never specific because it’s talking about state’s right to own people, or segregate, or other racist things. If it’s for something good then you just say what you’re actually wanting to do.
Yes, because you’ve always seen it used by the Republican Party.
Over the course of decades, the “pet causes” associated to each political party has shifted a lot. We think of them as a constant but not so much.
I fully agree with the “States’ rights to do what??” memes, based on how Republicans dogwhistle it. Realistically though, if there can be some basic faith that the person asking for a particular “states right” is not a horrible person, they can have some decent points to it.
I totally agree with giving states more control. The thing is, if I’m ever discussing it, I’m not going to be as vague as “states rights”. That’s my point. It’s not that the argument is bad, but that the only reason to be vague is to conceal the true intent.
Agreed, but that’s a very poor example. A somewhat better one would be state voting systems. Without federal control they get a lot harder to game.