Well a good first step would be to accept that societal changes take time to develop. We have made huge progress in areas such as women's rights. Asian immigrants, which were severely discriminated against in the past, have achieved tremendous upward mobility in our society. There are many other areas in which our society has progressed. All of this progress has occurred without any of the radical discrimatory tactics that are used today.

> We have made huge progress in areas such as women's rights.

And suffragettes put bombs in mailboxes and threw their bodies under horses. 2nd wave feminists were far more "anti-man" than modern feminists (there aren't too many political lesbians nowadays). The "peaceful protest" that people recall so fondly rarely was so peaceful but is instead used as a cudgel to resist all change today by claiming that activists aren't "doing it right".

> And suffragettes put bombs in mailboxes and threw their bodies under horses

And you think that had a positive effect on women's suffrage?

> 2nd wave feminists were far more "anti-man" than modern feminists

Well so what? Was suppressing men an actual tactic that contributed to progress?

The bombs in the mailboxes? Absolutely.

Violence rarely works politically unless you’re talking about revolution.

In the UK, you can see a dramatic change in the response to suffrage activism after these sorts of things started. Decades of calm requests went nowhere.

No, terrorism did not work

Votes for women.

It wasn't obtained through asking politely.

Those bombings didn’t result in votes for women at all.

> The campaign was halted at the outbreak of war in August 1914 without having brought about votes for women, as suffragettes pledged to pause their campaigning to aid the nation's war effort.

> The extent to which suffragette militancy contributed to the eventual enfranchisement of women in 1918 has been debated by historians, although the consensus of historical opinion is that the militant campaign was not effective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_bombing_and_arson_...

> We have made huge progress in areas such as women's rights.

In the U.S. there is still a major fight for women's reproductive rights, with frequent backsliding (TX is the most extreme recent example).

> All of this progress has occurred without any of the radical discrimatory tactics that are used today.

Every step toward restoring human rights to marginalized groups has been labeled radical (because technically it is radical compared to the status quo) and must come at the expense of some privilege that others hold. Privilege, however, is not a human right and therefore not something inherently worthy of protection.

That isn't about women's rights. One side argues it is about womens rights, that abortion is merely a medical procedure.

The other side argues that the fetus (usually called "unborn") have independent heartbeats and unique DNA, and as such have their own right to life. That is why they use the term "pro-life".

If it really were about children's rights, then they would also be all for supporting families economically and putting resources into education. But they do not. The most probable explanation is still control over female reproduction.

This conversation could be a whole lot less acrimonious if we were to acknowledge the core conservative position: the intact nuclear family is the primary locus of children's rights.

Why bother trying to understand your opponents position in good faith when it is so much faster and satisfying to just slander them?

This seems to be the crux of our entire political situation as a country (has been for awhile, though certainly feels amplified the past 15 years).

“If you were really against murder, you would support more money going to schools.”

Because that represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the conservatives' view of what a "right" is. Social welfare programs are a necessary intrusion upon the rights of the taxpayers to the fruit of their labor, and the specific balance that they have chosen isn't to your liking.

Ask, talk to, or overhear any of the people in texas who support the bill, and not one of them will give a damn about, or even consider as an issue, "control over female reproduction". That is your concern, not theirs.

I would agree with that. You only slip and evade so many punches before you strike back. Many of these things took a lot of effort. Examples were suffrage in Switzerland, only approved in 1971(by male voters). Sounds crazy, the UK suffragettes got their way between WW1 and WW2, it's pretty shameful that Some anti homosexuality laws have been passed after that. The same conservative outlets who point fingers at the Talibans for killing homosexuals have been on the anti gay train when it was convenient.

The Dutch simplified the most useful rule in the 17th century: "live and let live", it was codified into (maritime) law.

We have a system that cannot accommodate all views and opinions, but if we gonna call it democracy, at least the minorities should not be discriminated on.

But yeah, a bullies freedom of speech and someone with green hair crossing paths will cause some potential friction. If not right there on the spot, people will vent online. Case in point, there's this guy Nick Szabo , intelligent person, but damn his Twitter feed and contributions make you wonder if he dresses up as a klansman in the nights.

Switzerland still has conscription for men only, so it's arguably still a sexist society (against men).

What's interesting is that men's suffrage was often justified by conscription: that people shouldn't be sent to fight wars they didn't have a say in. But then women got suffrage without having to be conscripted on the basis of equality, while only men still got conscripted. Not a great deal for men!

> The Dutch simplified the most useful rule in the 17th century: "live and let live", it was codified into (maritime) law.

Would that happen to be the same Dutch that were heavily involved in the slave trade (about the same time you mention)?

Yes I agree, odd interpretation, might be even perverse to a degree, as it only applied to maritime law and was probably abused to engage in slave trade, they could always claim they never killed a slave.

The statement is potentially nice, though.

Ivy league kids from rich families are getting "punched in the face every single day"? What timeline is that?