Progressives pushed for explicit and implicit vaccine mandates. From travel restrictions to being denied access to worship, progressives were elated to see individuals denied basic freedoms and bodily autonomy. They praised the fact that judges would put individuals in prison if they did not get the COVID-19 vaccine. Progressives advanced opinions that suggested the unvaccinated should not be allowed to leave their homes, and if they do go outside, and get COVID, they should not be allowed to get hospital care.
Now when one reads or hears “my body, my choice” from progressives, it is nothing more than a collection of letters that make familiar words—that is, words that have no meaning when spoken by progressives. They have lost what moral authority they had on bodily autonomy.
i am not exactly an expert historian, but I cannot recall any other political or social group having such a sustained and comprehensive nervous breakdown as liberals have had in the trump era.
this existential meltdown/mental collapse has led them to repudiate just about every prior principle that once defined left-liberalism:
free speech (not unless they approve); free thought/free expression (not if it hurts the feelings of the marginalized); freedom of association (u will be canceled even if u just know someone who voted for trump or expresses verboten opinions); oligarchic control of society (not bad now that the oligarchs are on their side); big money out of elections (ok if mark zuckerberg is willing to drop $40 million on your candidate); not judging people by race (that's racist); not trusting large corporations (pfizer would never lie!); and, of course, bodily autonomy (take the shot or lose your ability to function in society).
i don't think there's any hope of them coming to their senses till orange man is either dead or otherwise incapacitated.
We are really living in a unique time. The great irony of it all was that progressives lost trust in the very institutions and political ethos they created. Our political institutions have been moving left since the 1960s.
The anomie that the left experienced during the Trump regime was complete uncalled for and speaks more to our existential dread as a culture. And the totalitarian attitude and unapologetic misleading narratives during the BLM protest/riots, Covid-19 Pandemic, immigration crisis, and economic downturn made it so much worse. I think when historians start writing about the early 21st century, they will likely title it "The Collapse of Progressivism".
I really think that the Left mindset after Trump is along the lines of 'We must destroy the village in order to save it" or to translate it into WaPo speak: if "Democracy Dies in Darkness" and "Democracy" means universal acceptance of liberal/left rule, thought, ideas, language, education, etc and "Darkness" means these things are contested or rolled back, then the only way to restore "Democracy" is to to acquiesce to total progressive rule in all spheres of life.
So what we think of as limits and barriers (Constitutional or otherwise), good-faith discourse, diversity of thought and opinion, parental input in education, honest evenhanded journalism etc, all these must go for the safety of "Democracy".
And another irony here is all the people pushing this truly deeply believe they are rational, reasonable, fair and tolerant.
I’m trying to understand the assertion “my body; my choice” as clearly as possible, and then move on towards the specific contexts in which it is claimed.
The claim is that “my body; my choice” means that if it is 1)my body it is therefore 2) my choice.
We can observe that there are plenty of cases in which it is indeed and individual’s body but nevertheless it is not their choice.
The claim is an invalid argument. There are many circumstances where what to do with one’s body is absolutely not one’s choice, which we typically refer to as “the law”, which are a codified set of circumstances in which “my body; my choice” is not true.
Because the argument is not valid, it is also not useful in bringing us closer to the truth of whether or not choosing to not get vaccinated is analogous to having an abortion.
I think that the real lesson to be learned is how effective laconic rhetoric (lol) is in muddying the waters around important issues.
As usual, kudos to Peter and his team for an interesting claim and conversation.
Before watching the video, I would agree with this claim, perhaps strongly so. Both issues share a value of personal liberty and bodily autonomy potentially limited by concerns for the health/life of others—the individual versus the state. Another layer is added if we invoke some notion of parental rights. Does a parent have a greater say than the state over what is done to their child? If a parent believes it is in the best interest of the child to terminate their (imminent) life, or to not provide them with a particular vaccine, should the parent be allowed to do so against the objection of the state? And at what point does the child get a say in the matter? Obviously, the latter question is irrelevant to abortion, although it is no less so for many early-childhood vaccines (and other medical procedures). These seem to me to be tricky questions in practice. I think most of us are going to be at least a little hypocritical in our stances and have a difficult time articulating why.
Progressives pushed for explicit and implicit vaccine mandates. From travel restrictions to being denied access to worship, progressives were elated to see individuals denied basic freedoms and bodily autonomy. They praised the fact that judges would put individuals in prison if they did not get the COVID-19 vaccine. Progressives advanced opinions that suggested the unvaccinated should not be allowed to leave their homes, and if they do go outside, and get COVID, they should not be allowed to get hospital care.
Now when one reads or hears “my body, my choice” from progressives, it is nothing more than a collection of letters that make familiar words—that is, words that have no meaning when spoken by progressives. They have lost what moral authority they had on bodily autonomy.
i am not exactly an expert historian, but I cannot recall any other political or social group having such a sustained and comprehensive nervous breakdown as liberals have had in the trump era.
this existential meltdown/mental collapse has led them to repudiate just about every prior principle that once defined left-liberalism:
free speech (not unless they approve); free thought/free expression (not if it hurts the feelings of the marginalized); freedom of association (u will be canceled even if u just know someone who voted for trump or expresses verboten opinions); oligarchic control of society (not bad now that the oligarchs are on their side); big money out of elections (ok if mark zuckerberg is willing to drop $40 million on your candidate); not judging people by race (that's racist); not trusting large corporations (pfizer would never lie!); and, of course, bodily autonomy (take the shot or lose your ability to function in society).
i don't think there's any hope of them coming to their senses till orange man is either dead or otherwise incapacitated.
We are really living in a unique time. The great irony of it all was that progressives lost trust in the very institutions and political ethos they created. Our political institutions have been moving left since the 1960s.
The anomie that the left experienced during the Trump regime was complete uncalled for and speaks more to our existential dread as a culture. And the totalitarian attitude and unapologetic misleading narratives during the BLM protest/riots, Covid-19 Pandemic, immigration crisis, and economic downturn made it so much worse. I think when historians start writing about the early 21st century, they will likely title it "The Collapse of Progressivism".
I really think that the Left mindset after Trump is along the lines of 'We must destroy the village in order to save it" or to translate it into WaPo speak: if "Democracy Dies in Darkness" and "Democracy" means universal acceptance of liberal/left rule, thought, ideas, language, education, etc and "Darkness" means these things are contested or rolled back, then the only way to restore "Democracy" is to to acquiesce to total progressive rule in all spheres of life.
So what we think of as limits and barriers (Constitutional or otherwise), good-faith discourse, diversity of thought and opinion, parental input in education, honest evenhanded journalism etc, all these must go for the safety of "Democracy".
And another irony here is all the people pushing this truly deeply believe they are rational, reasonable, fair and tolerant.
This probably should be a public service announcement.
I’m trying to understand the assertion “my body; my choice” as clearly as possible, and then move on towards the specific contexts in which it is claimed.
The claim is that “my body; my choice” means that if it is 1)my body it is therefore 2) my choice.
We can observe that there are plenty of cases in which it is indeed and individual’s body but nevertheless it is not their choice.
The claim is an invalid argument. There are many circumstances where what to do with one’s body is absolutely not one’s choice, which we typically refer to as “the law”, which are a codified set of circumstances in which “my body; my choice” is not true.
Because the argument is not valid, it is also not useful in bringing us closer to the truth of whether or not choosing to not get vaccinated is analogous to having an abortion.
I think that the real lesson to be learned is how effective laconic rhetoric (lol) is in muddying the waters around important issues.
As usual, kudos to Peter and his team for an interesting claim and conversation.
Before watching the video, I would agree with this claim, perhaps strongly so. Both issues share a value of personal liberty and bodily autonomy potentially limited by concerns for the health/life of others—the individual versus the state. Another layer is added if we invoke some notion of parental rights. Does a parent have a greater say than the state over what is done to their child? If a parent believes it is in the best interest of the child to terminate their (imminent) life, or to not provide them with a particular vaccine, should the parent be allowed to do so against the objection of the state? And at what point does the child get a say in the matter? Obviously, the latter question is irrelevant to abortion, although it is no less so for many early-childhood vaccines (and other medical procedures). These seem to me to be tricky questions in practice. I think most of us are going to be at least a little hypocritical in our stances and have a difficult time articulating why.