~3 users here now
For discussing more advanced feminist/social justice issues and questions.
Matt Taibbi opposes Roe vs. Wade because he is a staunch Federalist. Is this position defensible? (self.discussion)
submitted 3 years ago* by cojoco
The Rancid Honey Trap has a bit of a snarky take on Matt Taibbi joining Pierre Omidyar:
In this, she takes Matt Taibbi to task for a few things, including the fact that he wants Roe vs. Wade overturned:
The former editor of the eXile—an irreverent English-language newspaper and website in post-Soviet Moscow—and a contributor to the New York Press, Taibbi’s politics are all over the map. The son of NBC journalist Mike Taibbi, Taibbi says he "grew up around left-wing politics; I spent a lot of time at peace marches." He describes himself as "more of a libertarian than anything else," but favors heavy regulations of industry. He despises the religious right but wants Roe v. Wade overturned because he's a staunch federalist. He opposes the Iraq War, but doesn’t feel that homosexuals should have federal job protections. More than anything, the 37-year-old Taibbi believes that investing any emotion in the ideals of American democracy is “digging for hope in a shit mountain.”
This makes him a much more complicated and contentious character than I expected, but I still like reading his take-downs of Wall Street.
My question is this: is Matt Taibbi's position defensible, or does it show that he is sexist?
[–]skookin 12 points13 points14 points 3 years ago
if huge numbers of people with uteruses end up dying and/or forced to carry unwanted fetuses to term, do i give a shit what the lofty motivations behind the theft of our bodily autonomy are?
[–]cojoco[S] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago
Okay ... while that is a very good point, you could also argue that the War on Drugs is only possible because states have allowed the Federal Government to over-ride state powers.
Prohibition required an amendment to the US constitution to be regarded as constitutional, yet the War on Drugs has been waged without any corresponding amendment to the constitution.
I guess one could argue that if Roe vs. Wade should be overturned, then the War on Drugs, which also kills huge numbers of people, should be overturned too, as it is also a states-right issue.
But then Matt Taibbi should be arguing against the War on Drugs, not Roe vs. Wade.
I wonder why he picked that issue?
[–]curious_electric 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago
Because he can get high but he can't give birth?
Seriously, people generally invoke States' Rights only when the thing they are arguing for is indefensible on its own. If you want the war on drugs to end, you want to end it, not to merely give states the choice of ending it. And you'll argue for ending it.
When you want to do something that you know is morally indefensible and you can't argue directly for it without looking like a gigantic dick, your recourse is to argue that it's being dealt with by the federal government instead of the states or vice versa.
[–]cojoco[S] 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago
The reason I brought the War on Drugs into the discussion is because it's also caused a lot of death and horribleness, but I agree with you, I think you're correct.
[–]FZA 12 points13 points14 points 3 years ago*
judging by that one sentence from that reason interview he sounds like he's full of shit. he says he is against against roe v. wade and then segues into talking about regulating drugs which is a complete red herring because the supreme court ruled that women have the right to abortion which needs to be balanced against the state's ability to regulate them. discussing whether states should be able to regulate drugs rather than the federal government is tangential to the discussion of rights at the core of roe v wade. he is just dressing up his anti-choice beliefs with some political buzz words like federalism and such
Yeah, I agree.
[–]madbro_mcstarcraft 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago
it is not defensible and it shows he is sexist
[–]Grey 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago
Well, that's completely disappointing and simultaneously unexpected.
[–]srsly 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago
Remember that a major role that the federal government has undertaken in the last hundred years is protecting minorities and those with less power and privilege against the state in which they live. The federal government especially put massive pressure on the individual states to remove many institutional racisms and sexisms. Roe V Wade was one such mechanism for removing equalizing against sexism, and opposing the federal government's role in protecting marginalized groups is opposing the marginalized groups themselves.
This is, of course, oversimplified, and often the federal government is on the wrong side of things (especially with DOMA, barf). Generally, though, the federal government has been on the progressive side of things. If Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi or Alabama had their way, Jim Crow would be viciously alive to this day.
[–]cojoco[S] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago
I wish I could vote you up, but my ancient firefox doesn't work here, so thanks instead.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
all it takes is a username and password
is it really that easy? only one way to find out...
already have an account and just want to login?
π Rendered by PID 20608 on fempireactual at 2017-09-23 03:40:54.477720+00:00 running d7a6e7e.