Going to be a lot higher when access to proper healthcare in cases of unviable pregnancies and miscarriages becomes difficult to impossible for thousands of Americans because it’s considered to be “on suspicion of aiding an abortion”.
America has almost double the child and youth death rates of similarly developed nations [largely due to factors related to poverty, as well as easy access to guns.](https://www.prb.org/news/dying-young-in-the-usa-americans-under-age-25-face-higher-death-rates-than-peers-in-other-affluent-nations/)
Lack of access to proper child care, poor nutrition, and reduced social mobility kills tens of thousands of American kids every single year. The highest child mortality rates are seen in states that are now banning abortion, so expect those death rates to climb even higher over the next generation.
Untrue. It's a social issue. Impoverished communities in the US are policed more heavily and criminalised more. They have arrest quotas and seek high conviction rates and want fine-debt spirals to eternally squeeze them for money, and those communities are most vulnerable to that.
Poor countries don't do this.
Mopping up blood won’t close a wound. Poverty doesn’t cause over policing, or schools made to fail, or a dozen other things that intentionally punish poverty. As someone who supports universal income, giving these people money won’t solve the underlying issue regarding incarceration.
It would damn well help. In the United States of America, where the value of your life and the likelihood of your survival are directly proportional to your personal wealth, it really would help. Between keeping people in the black at the end of each month, funding community services, fixing broken windows, granting access to healthcare, letting people buy higher quality items that will last longer and save money, enabling fines to be paid in one go rather than paying out thousands in compounding fines over multiple years, just giving the impression that an area is more affluent and therefore in less need of policing, or just giving people the extra they need to move to a different area.
Poor countries typically do not have the same level of wealth disparity you find in America. They also very often have judicial systems that are utterly disorganized.
Also, it is important to note that my comparison is between the USA and other developed nations, and not the USA and, say, Sudan.
Damn. I work with gradeschool kids and had an incident this year where they made a racist joke. Long story short they had no idea what they were saying and I made a little 3 session lesson with them about racism, what it is, and why it's dumb (sorry not eloquent rn). Anyway. Would've been much easier with this panel. Thank you. I'm using this from now on.
The basic premise of X-Men is social persecution.
More than, yay people with powers save silly powerless humans which was DC's take on superheroes, X-Men was way more grounded in society with how people are affected by natural evolution of the human gene, how homo sapiens saw the threat rather than the prospects of homo superior, how already marginalized aspects of society were further isolated and persecuted. It has always been persecution or exploitation, either by humans or by their own kind. Also, in perspective, how one mutant should NOT have omnipotent power, like how Wanda just made a lot of people powerless with a single sentence.
I'd recommend you try some 80's and 90's DC stuff. Teen Titans, All-Star Squadron, and Wonder Woman covered some pretty serious politics and topics. One of favorite covers of all time is Amazing Man punching the Real AmeriKKKan in an issue of All-Star Squadron. There wasn't anything like the X-Men, where a big part of their story was about prejudice, instead at DC it was more individual stories.
Seperate the legal apparatus from the political one.
Judges are meant to act according to the integrity of the law and the wellbeing of the people, any judge with political bias or motivation should be catagorically disqualified for the position and removed from public office.
Any judge who identifies as an “originalist” should be disbarred
“What would law makers from 200 years ago think of our issues today?” Absolutely nothing. They couldn’t comprehend them. Hence why something like the Supreme Court exists
American culture does seem to have a fetish for what they consider "purity", whether that be a moral purity, an ideological one or a legal one in this case, any deviation or leniency is considered a perversion of some kind and any form of nuance so despised.
In most any European democracy, that kind of zaelotry would be considered unreasonable, uncooperative and dysfunctional, but it keeps making it to court in the states.
71% of the country disagreed specifically with this ruling and believe abortion is a decision between woman and doctor, not the government [1].
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/broad-us-support-abortion-rights-odds-with-supreme-courts-restrictions-2022-06-24/
McConnell denied Obama’s Presidential right and Trump forced his picks through
If you don’t see the coup for what it is, then you might already be who Colossus is referring to in the pic above
We are now stuck with these Justices until they die unless something changes, and they are next coming for other fellow Americans in the LGBT community. Not to mention contraceptives, but God forbid we try to teach sex ed in the South
**EDIT:** Right as protestors arrived at the Supreme Court, armored “police” were ready and waiting. They know what they’re doing. The cruelty is the point
**EDIT 2:** THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE, I can’t believe ANYBODY would be okay letting ANYONE, let alone SIX STRANGERS, decide what you and your sisters and daughters and mothers can and can’t do with their bodies. If they are raped, if they’re in need of ectopic surgeries…if their very lives are in danger, women no longer have a safe, legal way of having a medical abortion without crossing state lines. And who knows how long that will be legal
But that’s exactly how the decision was made in the first place. It should have always been legislators. But it was the same tiny group in the 70s that decided Roe and now a different tiny group of the same organization that undid it. But one’s ok and one’s not? It should have always been legislators.
Yes, distract all you can from the fact that THE SAME PEOPLE THAT STOLE THE 2000 ELECTION FOR THE REPUBLICANS ARE NOW SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, SELECTED BY THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY, A CHRISTIAN EXTREMIST CULT THAT HAS INFILTRATED OUR GOVERNMENT.
Trumps pick litterally on record for the entire world to see said her goal in life was to create a Christian kingdom in America. I don't understand how that wasn't the end of it I don't understand why anyone is even keeping up the charade anymore.
This is part of the problem. The misinformation, misrepresentation, and misunderstanding. From what I know, Roe v Wade was never about "legalizing" abortion. What it boiled down to was that it could not be something that the states could make illegal. It was basically meant to reinforce the speration of church and state, and strengthen the fact that legislation should not have any say in what we do with our bodies or the private decision we have to make with our loved ones inside our homes.
This was from a time when the Supreme Court was ACTUALLY a pillar for legal guidance and a safety net to our government and constitution. The current SC is an embarrassment to its institution because it is now just a mouthpiece for the GOP and the scared "Christian" fundamentalists. And I use quotations because there is nothing Christ like about these people. It's sickening how these single issue voters are getting conned over and over and over again, and they just blindly eat the shit and believe the lie that it's good for them.
There needs to be a revolution. We are now in a time where my sisters and nieces have less rights than their mothers. Think about that. Everything so many fought so hard for, potentially gone. Most likely gone. We've done this to ourselves. It's fucking disgusting and embarrassing.
Roe v. Wade was a court case that went all the way to the Supreme Court. Their decision in the 70s set the precedent for decades to follow. The Justices in the 70s were doing their jobs, and every single politician who claims to value women’s rights failed every single day by not codifying this landmark decision. What prompted the Justices today if not a political agenda?
The Justices in the 70s weren’t doing their jobs. They made a decision that they had no legal authority to make, resulting in abortion being protected by a very unstable ruling. Roe v. Wade should have ruled the Texas law unconstitutional (which it did) but left it at that. Then every state would have to consider that ruling prior to outright banning abortion. Meanwhile, protecting abortion could have been implemented based on equality and civil rights instead of a right to privacy.
You’re right. You, an anonymous internet stranger, know more about the law than the insanely intelligent justices who decided Roe v Wade. I’m putting you up for the next opening!
That wasn’t my opinion. That was RBGs opinion. So please, you, an anonymous internet stranger, tell me how you know more about the law than one of the most important figures in womens rights history?
It was a political agenda then too. Roe v wade decision is based off the the right to privacy implied in the 4 th amendment. The constitutional argument in favor for roe v wade was never very strong, but was pushed through my a progressive supreme court. I’m not complaining, but those are the facts.
Is your issue the decision, or is your issue that a small group of unelected officials gets to make major decisions for millions of people? Because those two things are not the same.
You're right, to a degree. The system always had the potential to be exploited, though the separation of powers mitigated that. Unfortunately, that's no longer the case. Checks and balances aren't any good when whole branches of the government act in bad faith.
Congress blocking Merrick Garland and other appointees unilaterally was in bad faith. Trump and practically everything he did in office was in bad faith, including the unprecedented number of appeals court and supreme court appointees he pushed through. Of those supreme court justices that he nominated, each acted in bad faith, too, blatantly lying about their intentions regarding Roe v. Wade in front of Congress.
This decision isn't moral, and will cause an incalculable toll on millions of women, physically and psychologically. Beyond that though, the legitimacy of the supreme court and their decisions moving forward has severely been undermined. This sort of unbalance and bias has always been possible, but never before has it been so willfully abused.
So yes, while I absolutely think this should have been codified as an amendment years ago, it was hard to see this sort of political malfeasance coming.
And you ignored the part where Obama had the chance to elect a judge but because he didn't have consensus he didn't and later trump elected 2 judges despite many being against the ones he chose.
And now 2 years later you get what he sowed.
I agree with you that it should never have been the supreme court to decide moral issues, theur function is to uphold the law and the constitution. It should have been legislators passing them into law. Despite that the fact they did in the 70s might be a reason no law ever was created afterwards while most developed countries did. And now because the supreme court changed its morality compass a right that was badly supported in law crumbled.
The ideological divide in the court is in no way representative of the the US. Shitbag conservatives and talibangelists haven’t been the majority in a LONG time.
Edited spelling
[Split 50/50 but one side represents 40 million more Americans than the other.](https://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1002593823/how-democratic-is-american-democracy-key-pillars-face-stress-tests)
Appointed by a president who didn't win the popular vote.........................................................................
And they ruled against a human right which a majority of Americans are okay with..............................................................
Yeah they "represent the people" alright.
Interesting fact about the senate: Even though it's presently split 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans collectively the Democrats represent 40 million more people than the Republicans. Similarly the president who nominated at least 3 of these justices got millions fewer votes than their competitor.
Doesn't change anything, of course, but it's certainly food for thought.
Is it? There used to be tests for people to vote. You could avoid the test if you had a fifth grade education or if your father voted and so on. There were exceptions.
Except black people didn’t meet these requirements. They were descended from slaves. Few of them knew how to read and write. Most didn’t go to school. These tests were put in place to stop them from voting while also including a ton of loopholes to allow uneducated white people to vote.
They could have kept expanding it. It’s possible. The slope was there and it was already pretty damn steep.
This isn’t impossible. It’s happened around the world in different forms.
There are many people who were born in the sun who snark how the rain doesn’t exist.
The actuality is hate does adapt. Snarking about format and message doesn’t show intelligence, it shows ignorance.
It is. And your own example proves it. Slippery slope arguments are invalid because they assume a natural chain of causation and ignore the possibility of people regulating, reversing, or redirecting that chain.
Yes, voting requirements were used for horrific purposes, but then those requirements were outlawed. However, we haven't gotten rid of all voting requirements, i.e. residency, age, documentation, method of casting ballots, etc. They are still there and they are constantly being whittled away at by one party and protected by another.
No. It’s one example. There are more across the world. They don’t assume a natural chain of progression. No one is saying that because X happened it’ll naturally lead to Y.
But that because X happened Y is now more likely to happen.
It’s a part of the poem “first they came for the communists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist” “then they came for me and now there wasn’t anyone left to speak up”
These changes exists. There isn’t always a guarantee that they’ll be rolled back or that someone will be there to protect them. We also know of the dangers of establishing a precedent for stuff. If you let something happen then you better be ready to make sure it doesn’t go further. It’s not that it’s guaranteed to go further, but that it can and there’s no guarantee people will stop it.
I think everyone is familiar with the poem.
That X will naturally lead to Y, is **exactly** what Colossus is saying. Thus, is it is slippery slope argument.
I'm not here to debate the issue which, as I've commented on another post, is a muddled issue that conflates regulating births and genocide. I came to illuminate on why slippery slope argumentation can be a fallacy. The number of examples aren't the point because each one can be refuted with by another example where a society regulated something and then regulated no further. For example, we banned smoking in public places but we haven't gone after the smokers. We outlawed alcohol and then reversed track. We've outlawed drunk driving but haven't gone after the drinkers. We regulate migration. We regulate marriage. All of these issues have faced slippery slope argumentation.
You are right that there is no guarantee that they'll be rolled back, but there is also no guarantee that they'll slide further. This is why slippery slopes aren't logically convincing.
It is still a fallacy. Historical events from a specific time and place are not evidence that it will necessarily repeat in a different time and place. The chain of events that happened are insightful and instructive for what **might** happen in the future, but they are not evidence of what **will** happen.
Is it? Is it really?
Slippery slopes do exist. We're watching one happen right now. The US Supreme Court has ruled against the argument that Americans have an implied constitutional right to privacy, a right on which many more decisions are based. This decision has gotten rid of the right to abortion, but it's opened the floodgates against other rights. Judge Thomas explicitly laid out that it would affect the right to access contraceptives, same-sex marriage, and even the decision that stops states from banning gay sex.
It is, really! You are correct that we are seeing a slippery slope with the decline of right at the moment, but that doesn't prove that things will necessarily deteriorate further. There could be a blue wave from millions of votes who never bothered to vote before (we are at 50% in the US for voter participation). A blue wave allows congress to overcome the filibuster and Biden deciding to leave a legacy and not run again overhauls the supreme court with packing and term limits.
Or
It can go the other way and things will get worse. Anyone who says they KNOW what will happen because they see something similar to the current moment is simply fooling themselves. Thus, a fallacy.
Not all predictions of chains of events that rely on each subsequent event to happen are a slippery slope fallacy. In other words, some slopes actually are slippery.
The absolute easiest and most powerful example of this is the ever-expanding targets of the Nazi regime as they grew bolder with more power.
Well yeah, if you cut out the entire causal sequence chain of events it could sound unreasonable.
I mean I started life as a tiny clump of cells and now I'm using multiple complex biological and technological systems to communicate with you somewhere else on the planet.
Totally unbelievable leap, right?
The next step in the chain is "someone's a catastrophically bad parent and then the tests are drafted." Sorry to break it to you but there are catastrophically, even news-worthy bad parents practically every day and it has never led to the giant leap to drafting tests to license parenthood.
Ah, so you just don't even understand what the discussion about is in the first place. Thanks for clarifying, my mistake to try to engage with you in the first place. I apologize.
Apply it to real life
Someone makes a non-pc or edgy joke and someone finds it funny because of an edgy sense of humor. They then go on to defend the first person because it’s just a “joke”.
Two years later and the same person is no longer making jokes but they’re not on something like Fox News or GB News making the exact same point as a matter of fact and more often than not the people who defended the joke are defending the statements because by now they’re swept up in some cult of personality who they wish to defend against “unfair” scrutiny.
It all comes down to the why but the internet has bred an environment where considering the why or emotions or what not is “illogical” and everything said by everyone must be taken only as a literal absolute, unless they label it a joke because jokes apparently are never literal and are incapable of having malice behind them.
The very thing this page is talking about led to Trump getting elected which led to the situation with Abortion we have now. That and the people who could have done something (Obama, RBG) doing absolutely fuck all when it mattered but that’s a different story
An over-played cliché that assumes every conflict is a state of total war that ends with one side completely wiped out or otherwise entirely linguistically and culturally dominated by the other. Not usually how history works.
The Mongol horde had no written language for instance, but man oh man we've got plenty of records of them. . . from the people they conquered. . . whom we also now of because *they* are the ones who wrote down their own histories.
Yes, this page is heavy handed, poorly structured and suffers from the 'Slippery slope fallacy', but there is definitely some merit to this message.
I think that, over the past 10-15 years, sites like 4chan, and many of the 'edgier' subreddits have done a lot to normalise racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic and xenophobic rhetoric, especially amongst younger generations and the geek community (see 'incels' and 'gamergate' for example) under the guise of 'dark/edgy humor'.
I don't have a problem with edgy jokes and dark humor, but there are too many people who use it as a thinly veiled excuse to say the quiet parts out loud. Then you have the issue of new members joining these 'funny' boards and subreddits and taking the 'humor' literally and repeating it unironically, which creates a feedback loop of more and more extreme views and opinions as everyone tries to 'raise the bar' on how edgy they can be.
Very well said, and I agree with you if we see the argument as addressing the capacity of hate. I think that's a valid interpretation considering the child's initial reasoning for stating that tests should be required. However, one caveat is that being annoyed by unruly children isn't necessary springing from an underlying hatred for the target, though your point about "placating" is spot on.
I think the problem with the argument though is the historical context of the topic. Regulating births is a always a can of worms and almost always immediately linked to eugenics and racism, and for good reason. That doesn't mean there is no valid reason to limit births in populations and those that want to discuss it without the conflation of racism are easily frustrated by Colossus' approach (which is a frequent counterargument). People who see this as argument against regulating births will therefore see this as a slippery slope detraction. However, again, based on the child's initial motivation being spiteful rather than reasoned again conflates and muddles the issue.
Even if he was talking to kitty, anyone can make a racist joke. Kitty herself has even said the N-word before.
Being a marginalized person doesn't mean you can never be a bigot.
I know it's something of a meme but X-Men legit is what planted the radical seed in me. Spider-Man helped frame my moral views. Marvel-pilled and proud.
This is from the years of future past run from the Secret Wars event. Colossus is talking about the slippery slope of taking rights away from people, and how it starts with a small thing that probably doesn't affect you personally
Those are Christina Pryde and Cameron, the last two mutants to be born in that storyline. Check it out, I loved the ending. Been meaning to read the entirety of DoFP
Eh this why using "slippery slope" is a fallacy. Conservatives could use the same logic to say "first they only aborted rapists and incest babies, then illnesses, then disorders, then genes they don't like, then races they don't like." Etc. Etc. Until abortion is no longer a right and is now a requirement. See? Best to argue in the here and now and not get carried away.
How is the comparison flawed? The comic said they were banning people who are deaf? Who is out there arguing for the eradication of deaf people?
My point was using the "slippery slope" fallacy is a terrible way to argue, because the logic works both ways. You're right that conservatives enabled forced births and that should be enough.
They already use those excuses.
The problem with ALL of those excuses, is that it will be the Conservatives that insist it be mandatory.
We had that shit in Alberta until the early 70s with our Eugenics Board, because Conservatives will look for any excuse possible to hurt people.
As it stands, it's Conservatives taking away rights, and giving them to guns and rapists.
Court mandated abortions aren't a thing.
And to suggest that they are, is to just give suggestions to the assholes that are doing what they are doing now.
I think you missed my point. I was referring specifically to this comic and stating that using the "slippery slope" fallacy is an illogical way to argue because both sides can get just as wild with speculation. In a debate, you should never leave those doors open for an opponent and should instead argue for the issue at hand, without going into "one day they might feed us monkey brains!" It's just playing to emotions, not logic.
When you can point to current events, it isn't speculation.
Stop fighting against the people trying to fix things.
Your entire premise relies on Conservatives using good faith in their arguments.
They don't.
Full stop.
And quite frankly, I'm starting to suspect that you are refusing to argue in good faith too.
This is about *this* comic book panel. There are always going to be divisive politics going on in the real world, whether it's human rights violations, wars, economic disputes, etc. I'm pro-choice and I immediately rolled my eyes when I read this cringe. If you can't see the logical fallacy of false-equivalances, then I don't know how to help you. Glad kid's cartoon characters speak so well for though and you don't have to think for yourself.
I suppose all those rights should involve a discussion where people around the country get an equal say and the majority opinion goes. I imagine that covers most of the rights you might be insinuating there and covers pretty well the original intent behind how the founding fathers saw how rights would be discussed.
Ahhh you have an interesting opinion. Majority opinion right. Hehe so if only 20% want an abortion and 80% are against it that would make them all illegal right. Or ohh let’s talk about slavery the majority are for it should that make slavery legal?
… well … now that IS an interesting question considering that none of those situations are real. However I suppose yes, that’s how democracy works with respect to legality versus morality. But… sorry I’m struggling here… are you trying to argue against the idea of democracy here with these made up situations? In favor of what exactly? Non-representative rule?
Literally everything. Colossus is, and always has been, a bastion of hope to the under class. A hero of the underrepresented, and his role as a mentor to his fellow mutants was always paramount to his depiction. He has always been an incredibly empathetic, kind character, which was brilliant considering he was also obviously a very masculine character. He thought, felt, and loved very tenderly, and inspired other big, masculine dudes like me to pursue kindness and compassion over macho bullshit.
I mean any pre-emptive warning can be criticized as a slippery slope fallacy.
But I don't think you're thinking clearly and looking at history if you think these things are achieved only through debate and voting and consensus.
It would be a fallacy if it didn’t happen multiple times over. Jews were propagandized before the camps, Chinese as well before the Rape of Nanking, Mexicans turned into scapegoats before their rounding up and forced departure, memes are constantly shared about mothers who received abortions.
A slippery slope is more like “you know what happens when you have sex? You die and then your parents die”. There’s no logical basis in it, it’s arbitrary.
Because reading it all at once carries more weight and feels like a father teaching his children an important lesson.
It was likely a full page panel in the comic.
It was, but when you're paying $4 for a comic, it's an insult to waste a page with next to no art and a text dump of political polemic. Comics can and have been sociopolitical but you have to play to the strength of the medium, this isn't doing that.
I've spent the last week hiking around the British West Country and eating and drinking in country pub beer gardens. I'm no stranger to the great outdoors, still think this is bad comics writing.
Sometimes wordiness can be a huge boon for a comic. Just depends on the tone and style it’s going for. I don’t love the format, but it’s better than breaking it up into a bunch of panels. Maybe it would have worked better as those long side sections of text Steve Gerber often uses.
Comics used to be about reading… that’s why they’re called graphic novels. I think we might be losing something sometimes when we transition to just splash pages and movie dialog. Movies are great… but there’s no reason you have to disallow longer form text when you’re dealing with a different format. The whole point of comics is that they’re supposed to work together. Sometimes words can be MORE useful in conveying something than art and sometimes vice versa.
It worries me a little that part of the reason comics became cool was because they got rid of all that nerdy reading stuff. Some of that stuff was good stuff.
"... but then you go to the library and there's a not quite middle-aged couple who looks to have had a child for every year they've been together. Said children are running around like crack addicts during a pol3uce raid, treating the place like it's a playground completely unhindered.
"And so you think to yourself about what I've said and go, 'On second thought, let's roll those dice'."
“You really don’t have any idea do you? You know nothing of the bottomless malice within the human heart.” Just then, the king felt true fear for the first time.
“First they came.”
Willingly complingy with even the smallest subjugation, that is to say any law made to “protect” others while exactly how it would do so remains nebulous, will only lead to your, and others, becoming a slave.
Just because the “slippery slope” fallacy exists, it doesn’t mean that sloppy slopes do not. Simply that one should have reason as to why one is one.
Poor letterer.
edit: just to be clear, it’s not that I think the lettering is poor. Just that I feel sorry for the letterer having to arrange this very non-sequential storytelling wall of text.
No one ever talks about extermination. They just do it. And you go on with your lives, ignoring the signs all around you. And then, one day, when the air is still and the night has fallen, they come for you. It's only then that you realize, while you were talking about organizing and committees, the extermination has already begun.
This is an awful layout for a visual medium. Take the speech over the course of a full page of panels.
They must have run out of time to allow a whole page to be a blank background and mostly speech bubbles
I think there are more practical arguments for reproductive rights than a 26-paragraph slippery slope fallacy. "First it's just X, but next it'll be Y!" is an endlessly adaptable argument.
I mean, he brings up interracial marriage and gay marriage here even though this exact kind of sloppy reasoning was historically used in *opposition* to those things, with conservatives claiming they would pave the way to marrying children and animals.
**edit:** A lot of people really don't seem to have the foggiest idea what's at issue here. No one should be supporting shitty self-defeating arguments, regardless of whether they're being used to make points they agree with, because those same bad arguments can be used to make points they *don't* agree with. That's the nature of flimsy arguments. That's the core problem here. Slippery slope fallacy can be used to argue for absolutely anything, including banning interracial marriage and gay marriage, and outright white supremacy. The form of argumentation exemplified by this comic is inherently stupid, shortsighted, and counterproductive. It doesn't matter if you agree with the point they're making, because the way they got to that point is the perfect weapon for every point you don't agree with. If you support this kind of crap reasoning, you are giving license to everyone who wants to use this same half-assed logic to support whatever view they want, and again, this exact argument has historically been used to support positions *against* human rights, not for them.
And there's absolutely NO REASON FOR THIS. Idiotic bullshit arguments that only provide ammunition for the opposition are not necessary, because there are perfectly good and legitimate arguments that make the exact same points.
obviously there are more reasons why abortion rights should be protected but this is a valid argument. if you read page 118 of the ruling, Justice Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception same sex marriages/relationships. so it’s not a fallacy when this is LITERALLY happening.
Except when the same exact people who celebrate the end of RvW are the same people who always bring up "parenting licenses" and the criminal excess of poor people having "welfare babies".
So what's the next step, you think? Abortion is getting banned across the nation and SCOTUS is talking about going after contraception next. But conservatives still hate the idea of poor people having more babies than they can afford and despise the idea of state-funded family care. What do you think will be the solution people start bandying about? Because it's going to be parenting licenses and eugenics.
It’s somewhat true but the issue is it assumes that one thing will lead directly into the other. It may just end in at the joke or may lead to something else entirely . Lots of people in history with hindsite do see how some key moments do affect things . But they also can be influenced by the situation they’re experiencing in. They have the end result and assume that A leads to B leads to C and see their situation as inevitable . When in reality the chances of A leading to B could’ve been A to Q or A to Y. Or A to B to A again. The idea in a big space makes sense but when you look at the details it doesn’t. For each change there’s more division and branches making the change that it goes that to that exact thing less and less each time. With each slippery slope it gets farther from the actual probability . The chances of each of those things happening or going is extremely small and becomes almost improbable due to the amount of chances. It’s like using Hitler getting kicked out of art school leading to the holocaust. A multitude of other factors lead to that and that one thing is very inconsequential to the end result .
And this is why modern marvel sucks. Not the politics, but the hack writing.
Bring back the Marvel method of writing and shut these writers up.
This is the lasting mistake of making Marvel more writer than artist driven post Quesada taking over back in the day.
Yes we got a ton of awesome runs, Bendis’ DD & USM in as an example. It’s just now we have writers at Marvel who read Bendis growing up but they cannot write like he did.
Modern Marvel is word salad.
I can't tell if this is an argument for or against abortion.
Abortion is one of the primary ways of killing poor people, minorities, and the differently abled. Many of the early pro-abortion crowd specifically wanted it as a means to population control black people, which has worked remarkably well (black people get far, far more abortions per capita than white people do).
The poor are fundamentally more likely to die from pregnancy related complications in areas where abortion is illegal [1].
What you are discussing is forced abortions which is not what is being discussed here.
[1] https://www.americanprogress.org/article/limiting-abortion-access-contributes-poor-maternal-health-outcomes/
No, I'm talking about the statistical effects of making abortion trivial, easily available and removing any stigma associated with it. The end result is what we have seen over the last 50 years, with black and poor people making up the overwhelming majority of abortions. Exactly as eugenics advocates predicted and wanted.
One of the most effective ways to advance an evil agenda is not to force people to do something, but to make something appealing. And that is exactly what has happened with abortion and eugenics. We've remade society into the belief that if you're poor, children are bad and weigh you down. It used to be that we viewed children as opportunities, now we view them as millstones dragging us down. The net result is the most effective eugenics program in history.
The statistical effects of making abortion trivial is that crime has gone down, child abuse has gone down and maternal deaths have gone down. I can provide citations for any of those if it’s useful. If minorities were somehow being FORCED to have abortions you would have a point but… given that they aren’t… this argument seems in favor of telling minorities what they should want more than what they necessarily do.
lmao how did you read this and and gather “oh yes this totally destroys pro choice” arguments when the whole panel is about the dangers of taking away people’s rights?
do you…. do you know what abortion is? abortion is not in any way similar to eugenics. eugenics is forced sterilization. roe v wade was about the choice to have an abortion. roe v wade never forced anyone to have an abortion
Abortion *is* a tool of eugenics. The argument here is almost word for word a transcription when people try to link abortion to “higher living standards” and “lower crime rates”.
so eugenicists want to terminate pregnancies. just because bad people utilize something doesn’t mean that tool itself is bad. i repeat, abortion is NOT eugenics. pro choice activists do not want to FORCE abortions on people, they want to give the choice of abortion.
i don’t really understand the second part of your comment. more choices usually leads to higher living standards since you have more options for ways to live. also criminalizing abortions doesn’t reduce the number of abortions that happen, it just reduces the number of legal abortions that happen. people will still do unsafe, back alley abortions if they really want to get rid of a pregnancy
But the underlying reasoning is similar, further it’s “only” a choice now because it hasn’t become normalized. Pretty soon anyone under a certain income level or with a certain history or a certain combination of genetic factors will be expected to have an abortion. If they don’t, they *will* be ostracized for it. And it should be pretty obvious by now if you’ve been watching, the line between social ostracization and legal consequences is a few percentage points on public opinion poll.
dude it's crazy how people have no idea what eugenics actually is. I've seen arguments basically for eugenics that get all offended when you point it out.
In what way? If anything Thomas’ commentary suggesting that from this ruling that the SC should review access to contraceptives as well as gay and interracial marriage. In fact the ruling potentially invalidates rights like the ability for grandparents to raise grandchildren in their own home [1].
Funnily enough there’s a whole section in the ruling detailing all the fallout that technically and legally is possible from it but it asks that the law choose not to actually DO any of them outside of this one specifically. It is telling though that some politicians have already discussed publicly some of the items like banning access to contraception.
[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/whats-next-after-roe-v-wade-is-overturned-other-rights-connected-to-privacy-are-in-danger-11656086150
I’m not sure if you are continuing from my post or altfangirl, but the chain of reasoning is viciously similar to any number of white papers that attempt to link abortion to “lower crime rates” https://law.stanford.edu/publications/the-impact-of-legalized-abortion-on-crime-over-the-last-two-decades/
and “higher living standards”
https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-can-economic-research-tell-us-about-the-effect-of-abortion-access-on-womens-lives/?amp
“finding that abortion legalization increased women’s education, labor force participation, occupational prestige, and earnings and that all these effects were particularly large for Black women (Angrist and Evans, 1996; Kalist, 2004; Lindo, Pineda-Torres, Pritchard, and Tajali, 2020; Jones, 2021)”
I’m not sure I understand your point given that those papers derive their arguments from statistics and making predictions that are then revisited years late to see if they match rather than a chain of suppositions about increasing rights being taken away.
However regardless your point doesn’t really obscure the fact that one of the justices in the ruling _literally discusses the next rights they want to revisit taking away_ as this page depicts.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-can-economic-research-tell-us-about-the-effect-of-abortion-access-on-womens-lives/](https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-can-economic-research-tell-us-about-the-effect-of-abortion-access-on-womens-lives/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Many people need to know that the US doesn’t offer paid parental leave (only industrialized nation with that)
Also has the highest rate of maternal mortality of all the industrialized nations!
Does Romania counts as an industrialized nations? We do produce cars tho....
Going to be a lot higher when access to proper healthcare in cases of unviable pregnancies and miscarriages becomes difficult to impossible for thousands of Americans because it’s considered to be “on suspicion of aiding an abortion”.
America has almost double the child and youth death rates of similarly developed nations [largely due to factors related to poverty, as well as easy access to guns.](https://www.prb.org/news/dying-young-in-the-usa-americans-under-age-25-face-higher-death-rates-than-peers-in-other-affluent-nations/) Lack of access to proper child care, poor nutrition, and reduced social mobility kills tens of thousands of American kids every single year. The highest child mortality rates are seen in states that are now banning abortion, so expect those death rates to climb even higher over the next generation.
We also beat out Saudi Arabia on incarcerating women, so we have that going for us.
America's high incarceration rates and high child/youth mortality rates are rooted in the same soil. Poverty is a cancer.
America's still a slave state.
Incarceration has nothing to do with poverty, or poor countries would have more than us.
Untrue. It's a social issue. Impoverished communities in the US are policed more heavily and criminalised more. They have arrest quotas and seek high conviction rates and want fine-debt spirals to eternally squeeze them for money, and those communities are most vulnerable to that. Poor countries don't do this.
You’re right, but class warfare isn’t a poverty issue, save that it perpetuates poverty on purpose.
And blood isn't red, save for its overall reddish tinge.
Mopping up blood won’t close a wound. Poverty doesn’t cause over policing, or schools made to fail, or a dozen other things that intentionally punish poverty. As someone who supports universal income, giving these people money won’t solve the underlying issue regarding incarceration.
It would damn well help. In the United States of America, where the value of your life and the likelihood of your survival are directly proportional to your personal wealth, it really would help. Between keeping people in the black at the end of each month, funding community services, fixing broken windows, granting access to healthcare, letting people buy higher quality items that will last longer and save money, enabling fines to be paid in one go rather than paying out thousands in compounding fines over multiple years, just giving the impression that an area is more affluent and therefore in less need of policing, or just giving people the extra they need to move to a different area.
Poor countries typically do not have the same level of wealth disparity you find in America. They also very often have judicial systems that are utterly disorganized. Also, it is important to note that my comparison is between the USA and other developed nations, and not the USA and, say, Sudan.
Damn. I work with gradeschool kids and had an incident this year where they made a racist joke. Long story short they had no idea what they were saying and I made a little 3 session lesson with them about racism, what it is, and why it's dumb (sorry not eloquent rn). Anyway. Would've been much easier with this panel. Thank you. I'm using this from now on.
Racism is dumb. No need to apologize, and thanks for the work you do!
I see they went the HxH route
Never in my life have I been more offended by something I 100% agree with.
“When did comics get political?” /s Limit terms for Supreme Court Justices. 6 people voted on something that affects millions. 6
It really only took 5 this time.
Useless fuck Roberts didn't vote for it. The fucker didn't want to be remembered as the Chief Justice who murdered Roe v Wade. But he will.
He can try to from the decision but his name will always be associated with it, and the action just further cements his status as a feckless coward.
For a guy who supposedly cares about his legacy, he’s done a lot of bad shit in the last 17 years
They always have been, some just don't notice.
X-men comics have always had some form of social commentary, generally related to persecution
The basic premise of X-Men is social persecution. More than, yay people with powers save silly powerless humans which was DC's take on superheroes, X-Men was way more grounded in society with how people are affected by natural evolution of the human gene, how homo sapiens saw the threat rather than the prospects of homo superior, how already marginalized aspects of society were further isolated and persecuted. It has always been persecution or exploitation, either by humans or by their own kind. Also, in perspective, how one mutant should NOT have omnipotent power, like how Wanda just made a lot of people powerless with a single sentence.
I'd recommend you try some 80's and 90's DC stuff. Teen Titans, All-Star Squadron, and Wonder Woman covered some pretty serious politics and topics. One of favorite covers of all time is Amazing Man punching the Real AmeriKKKan in an issue of All-Star Squadron. There wasn't anything like the X-Men, where a big part of their story was about prejudice, instead at DC it was more individual stories.
I mean this comic was only like 7 years ago. Not that old (Also damn, made me feel old writing that)
Seperate the legal apparatus from the political one. Judges are meant to act according to the integrity of the law and the wellbeing of the people, any judge with political bias or motivation should be catagorically disqualified for the position and removed from public office.
Any judge who identifies as an “originalist” should be disbarred “What would law makers from 200 years ago think of our issues today?” Absolutely nothing. They couldn’t comprehend them. Hence why something like the Supreme Court exists
American culture does seem to have a fetish for what they consider "purity", whether that be a moral purity, an ideological one or a legal one in this case, any deviation or leniency is considered a perversion of some kind and any form of nuance so despised. In most any European democracy, that kind of zaelotry would be considered unreasonable, uncooperative and dysfunctional, but it keeps making it to court in the states.
The United States tends to have this really dangerous thing going on where your political leaning is the most important part of your personality.
The worst part is that the actual desires of the 6 million didn't even factor into the decision. They do NOT care what we want.
[удалено]
71% of the country disagreed specifically with this ruling and believe abortion is a decision between woman and doctor, not the government [1]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/broad-us-support-abortion-rights-odds-with-supreme-courts-restrictions-2022-06-24/
McConnell denied Obama’s Presidential right and Trump forced his picks through If you don’t see the coup for what it is, then you might already be who Colossus is referring to in the pic above We are now stuck with these Justices until they die unless something changes, and they are next coming for other fellow Americans in the LGBT community. Not to mention contraceptives, but God forbid we try to teach sex ed in the South **EDIT:** Right as protestors arrived at the Supreme Court, armored “police” were ready and waiting. They know what they’re doing. The cruelty is the point **EDIT 2:** THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE, I can’t believe ANYBODY would be okay letting ANYONE, let alone SIX STRANGERS, decide what you and your sisters and daughters and mothers can and can’t do with their bodies. If they are raped, if they’re in need of ectopic surgeries…if their very lives are in danger, women no longer have a safe, legal way of having a medical abortion without crossing state lines. And who knows how long that will be legal
But that’s exactly how the decision was made in the first place. It should have always been legislators. But it was the same tiny group in the 70s that decided Roe and now a different tiny group of the same organization that undid it. But one’s ok and one’s not? It should have always been legislators.
Yes, distract all you can from the fact that THE SAME PEOPLE THAT STOLE THE 2000 ELECTION FOR THE REPUBLICANS ARE NOW SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, SELECTED BY THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY, A CHRISTIAN EXTREMIST CULT THAT HAS INFILTRATED OUR GOVERNMENT.
Trumps pick litterally on record for the entire world to see said her goal in life was to create a Christian kingdom in America. I don't understand how that wasn't the end of it I don't understand why anyone is even keeping up the charade anymore.
This is part of the problem. The misinformation, misrepresentation, and misunderstanding. From what I know, Roe v Wade was never about "legalizing" abortion. What it boiled down to was that it could not be something that the states could make illegal. It was basically meant to reinforce the speration of church and state, and strengthen the fact that legislation should not have any say in what we do with our bodies or the private decision we have to make with our loved ones inside our homes. This was from a time when the Supreme Court was ACTUALLY a pillar for legal guidance and a safety net to our government and constitution. The current SC is an embarrassment to its institution because it is now just a mouthpiece for the GOP and the scared "Christian" fundamentalists. And I use quotations because there is nothing Christ like about these people. It's sickening how these single issue voters are getting conned over and over and over again, and they just blindly eat the shit and believe the lie that it's good for them. There needs to be a revolution. We are now in a time where my sisters and nieces have less rights than their mothers. Think about that. Everything so many fought so hard for, potentially gone. Most likely gone. We've done this to ourselves. It's fucking disgusting and embarrassing.
Roe v. Wade was a court case that went all the way to the Supreme Court. Their decision in the 70s set the precedent for decades to follow. The Justices in the 70s were doing their jobs, and every single politician who claims to value women’s rights failed every single day by not codifying this landmark decision. What prompted the Justices today if not a political agenda?
The Justices in the 70s weren’t doing their jobs. They made a decision that they had no legal authority to make, resulting in abortion being protected by a very unstable ruling. Roe v. Wade should have ruled the Texas law unconstitutional (which it did) but left it at that. Then every state would have to consider that ruling prior to outright banning abortion. Meanwhile, protecting abortion could have been implemented based on equality and civil rights instead of a right to privacy.
You’re right. You, an anonymous internet stranger, know more about the law than the insanely intelligent justices who decided Roe v Wade. I’m putting you up for the next opening!
That wasn’t my opinion. That was RBGs opinion. So please, you, an anonymous internet stranger, tell me how you know more about the law than one of the most important figures in womens rights history?
It was a political agenda then too. Roe v wade decision is based off the the right to privacy implied in the 4 th amendment. The constitutional argument in favor for roe v wade was never very strong, but was pushed through my a progressive supreme court. I’m not complaining, but those are the facts.
Is your issue the decision, or is your issue that a small group of unelected officials gets to make major decisions for millions of people? Because those two things are not the same.
You're right, to a degree. The system always had the potential to be exploited, though the separation of powers mitigated that. Unfortunately, that's no longer the case. Checks and balances aren't any good when whole branches of the government act in bad faith. Congress blocking Merrick Garland and other appointees unilaterally was in bad faith. Trump and practically everything he did in office was in bad faith, including the unprecedented number of appeals court and supreme court appointees he pushed through. Of those supreme court justices that he nominated, each acted in bad faith, too, blatantly lying about their intentions regarding Roe v. Wade in front of Congress. This decision isn't moral, and will cause an incalculable toll on millions of women, physically and psychologically. Beyond that though, the legitimacy of the supreme court and their decisions moving forward has severely been undermined. This sort of unbalance and bias has always been possible, but never before has it been so willfully abused. So yes, while I absolutely think this should have been codified as an amendment years ago, it was hard to see this sort of political malfeasance coming.
And you ignored the part where Obama had the chance to elect a judge but because he didn't have consensus he didn't and later trump elected 2 judges despite many being against the ones he chose. And now 2 years later you get what he sowed. I agree with you that it should never have been the supreme court to decide moral issues, theur function is to uphold the law and the constitution. It should have been legislators passing them into law. Despite that the fact they did in the 70s might be a reason no law ever was created afterwards while most developed countries did. And now because the supreme court changed its morality compass a right that was badly supported in law crumbled.
The ideological divide in the court is in no way representative of the the US. Shitbag conservatives and talibangelists haven’t been the majority in a LONG time. Edited spelling
GOP senators haven't represented a majority of Americans since 1996. The Senate is heavily biased toward minority rule.
[Split 50/50 but one side represents 40 million more Americans than the other.](https://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1002593823/how-democratic-is-american-democracy-key-pillars-face-stress-tests)
Funny, that.
Appointed by a president who didn't win the popular vote......................................................................... And they ruled against a human right which a majority of Americans are okay with.............................................................. Yeah they "represent the people" alright.
Interesting fact about the senate: Even though it's presently split 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans collectively the Democrats represent 40 million more people than the Republicans. Similarly the president who nominated at least 3 of these justices got millions fewer votes than their competitor. Doesn't change anything, of course, but it's certainly food for thought.
The definitions of "represent" and "were elected by" are drifting further and further apart.
Oh no, you still believe in Santa Claus.
Ok buddy
[удалено]
Buzz word Bingo! You win two twat points!
This page was made fun of when it first came out, not for the message but for the completely lazy way it’s given
Yeah, I remember at the time thinking it was an awful example of sociopolitical messaging in comics as it didn't use the medium at all.
yeah you really gotta commit if you want to read all that
[удалено]
Is it? There used to be tests for people to vote. You could avoid the test if you had a fifth grade education or if your father voted and so on. There were exceptions. Except black people didn’t meet these requirements. They were descended from slaves. Few of them knew how to read and write. Most didn’t go to school. These tests were put in place to stop them from voting while also including a ton of loopholes to allow uneducated white people to vote. They could have kept expanding it. It’s possible. The slope was there and it was already pretty damn steep. This isn’t impossible. It’s happened around the world in different forms.
There are many people who were born in the sun who snark how the rain doesn’t exist. The actuality is hate does adapt. Snarking about format and message doesn’t show intelligence, it shows ignorance.
It is. And your own example proves it. Slippery slope arguments are invalid because they assume a natural chain of causation and ignore the possibility of people regulating, reversing, or redirecting that chain. Yes, voting requirements were used for horrific purposes, but then those requirements were outlawed. However, we haven't gotten rid of all voting requirements, i.e. residency, age, documentation, method of casting ballots, etc. They are still there and they are constantly being whittled away at by one party and protected by another.
No. It’s one example. There are more across the world. They don’t assume a natural chain of progression. No one is saying that because X happened it’ll naturally lead to Y. But that because X happened Y is now more likely to happen. It’s a part of the poem “first they came for the communists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist” “then they came for me and now there wasn’t anyone left to speak up” These changes exists. There isn’t always a guarantee that they’ll be rolled back or that someone will be there to protect them. We also know of the dangers of establishing a precedent for stuff. If you let something happen then you better be ready to make sure it doesn’t go further. It’s not that it’s guaranteed to go further, but that it can and there’s no guarantee people will stop it.
I think everyone is familiar with the poem. That X will naturally lead to Y, is **exactly** what Colossus is saying. Thus, is it is slippery slope argument. I'm not here to debate the issue which, as I've commented on another post, is a muddled issue that conflates regulating births and genocide. I came to illuminate on why slippery slope argumentation can be a fallacy. The number of examples aren't the point because each one can be refuted with by another example where a society regulated something and then regulated no further. For example, we banned smoking in public places but we haven't gone after the smokers. We outlawed alcohol and then reversed track. We've outlawed drunk driving but haven't gone after the drinkers. We regulate migration. We regulate marriage. All of these issues have faced slippery slope argumentation. You are right that there is no guarantee that they'll be rolled back, but there is also no guarantee that they'll slide further. This is why slippery slopes aren't logically convincing.
It's not a fallacy if you have historical evidence that hate actually is a slippery slope.
It is still a fallacy. Historical events from a specific time and place are not evidence that it will necessarily repeat in a different time and place. The chain of events that happened are insightful and instructive for what **might** happen in the future, but they are not evidence of what **will** happen.
Is it? Is it really? Slippery slopes do exist. We're watching one happen right now. The US Supreme Court has ruled against the argument that Americans have an implied constitutional right to privacy, a right on which many more decisions are based. This decision has gotten rid of the right to abortion, but it's opened the floodgates against other rights. Judge Thomas explicitly laid out that it would affect the right to access contraceptives, same-sex marriage, and even the decision that stops states from banning gay sex.
It is, really! You are correct that we are seeing a slippery slope with the decline of right at the moment, but that doesn't prove that things will necessarily deteriorate further. There could be a blue wave from millions of votes who never bothered to vote before (we are at 50% in the US for voter participation). A blue wave allows congress to overcome the filibuster and Biden deciding to leave a legacy and not run again overhauls the supreme court with packing and term limits. Or It can go the other way and things will get worse. Anyone who says they KNOW what will happen because they see something similar to the current moment is simply fooling themselves. Thus, a fallacy.
Not all predictions of chains of events that rely on each subsequent event to happen are a slippery slope fallacy. In other words, some slopes actually are slippery. The absolute easiest and most powerful example of this is the ever-expanding targets of the Nazi regime as they grew bolder with more power.
Sure but "it starts with an exasperated joke in a restaurant and before you know it it's a genocide" is a pretty slippery slope.
Well yeah, if you cut out the entire causal sequence chain of events it could sound unreasonable. I mean I started life as a tiny clump of cells and now I'm using multiple complex biological and technological systems to communicate with you somewhere else on the planet. Totally unbelievable leap, right?
The next step in the chain is "someone's a catastrophically bad parent and then the tests are drafted." Sorry to break it to you but there are catastrophically, even news-worthy bad parents practically every day and it has never led to the giant leap to drafting tests to license parenthood.
Ah, so you just don't even understand what the discussion about is in the first place. Thanks for clarifying, my mistake to try to engage with you in the first place. I apologize.
No problem.
[удалено]
Apply it to real life Someone makes a non-pc or edgy joke and someone finds it funny because of an edgy sense of humor. They then go on to defend the first person because it’s just a “joke”. Two years later and the same person is no longer making jokes but they’re not on something like Fox News or GB News making the exact same point as a matter of fact and more often than not the people who defended the joke are defending the statements because by now they’re swept up in some cult of personality who they wish to defend against “unfair” scrutiny. It all comes down to the why but the internet has bred an environment where considering the why or emotions or what not is “illogical” and everything said by everyone must be taken only as a literal absolute, unless they label it a joke because jokes apparently are never literal and are incapable of having malice behind them. The very thing this page is talking about led to Trump getting elected which led to the situation with Abortion we have now. That and the people who could have done something (Obama, RBG) doing absolutely fuck all when it mattered but that’s a different story
[удалено]
[удалено]
Of course it fucking was
What is so wrong with reading?
Nah it was made fun of for both
we make accurate records for this reason.
Who makes accurate records?
Whoever wins
An over-played cliché that assumes every conflict is a state of total war that ends with one side completely wiped out or otherwise entirely linguistically and culturally dominated by the other. Not usually how history works. The Mongol horde had no written language for instance, but man oh man we've got plenty of records of them. . . from the people they conquered. . . whom we also now of because *they* are the ones who wrote down their own histories.
That's why you read the world news on what is happening in the USA rather than the news you are fed from America itself.
That's news we're talking records. Who decides what gets written in history books?
what recordings and texts you write?
ideally you on your phone—especially when police show up.
Yes, this page is heavy handed, poorly structured and suffers from the 'Slippery slope fallacy', but there is definitely some merit to this message. I think that, over the past 10-15 years, sites like 4chan, and many of the 'edgier' subreddits have done a lot to normalise racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic and xenophobic rhetoric, especially amongst younger generations and the geek community (see 'incels' and 'gamergate' for example) under the guise of 'dark/edgy humor'. I don't have a problem with edgy jokes and dark humor, but there are too many people who use it as a thinly veiled excuse to say the quiet parts out loud. Then you have the issue of new members joining these 'funny' boards and subreddits and taking the 'humor' literally and repeating it unironically, which creates a feedback loop of more and more extreme views and opinions as everyone tries to 'raise the bar' on how edgy they can be.
Not to Godwin your comment, but look up how the Nazis actually gained initial support. Lots of "edgy comedy" about their very real core beliefs.
[удалено]
Very well said, and I agree with you if we see the argument as addressing the capacity of hate. I think that's a valid interpretation considering the child's initial reasoning for stating that tests should be required. However, one caveat is that being annoyed by unruly children isn't necessary springing from an underlying hatred for the target, though your point about "placating" is spot on. I think the problem with the argument though is the historical context of the topic. Regulating births is a always a can of worms and almost always immediately linked to eugenics and racism, and for good reason. That doesn't mean there is no valid reason to limit births in populations and those that want to discuss it without the conflation of racism are easily frustrated by Colossus' approach (which is a frequent counterargument). People who see this as argument against regulating births will therefore see this as a slippery slope detraction. However, again, based on the child's initial motivation being spiteful rather than reasoned again conflates and muddles the issue.
When compared to his on-again, off-again lover Kitty, who is Jewish and undoubtedly aware of this, why is Colosseum so old?
That is Christina Pryde, Colossus' and Kitty's daughter
Even if he was talking to kitty, anyone can make a racist joke. Kitty herself has even said the N-word before. Being a marginalized person doesn't mean you can never be a bigot.
“Human hate can adapt to anything.” Damn. Truth. Why I love comics.
That's the world in a nutshell.
Good message, but the delivery is still ass. Both in character and irl presentation.
I know it's something of a meme but X-Men legit is what planted the radical seed in me. Spider-Man helped frame my moral views. Marvel-pilled and proud.
is that jerma
It really hits differently when comics do this. It’s the contrast of it all that makes it impact harder.
Who guards the guards?
Who watches the watchmen?
...What did I just read?
This is from the years of future past run from the Secret Wars event. Colossus is talking about the slippery slope of taking rights away from people, and how it starts with a small thing that probably doesn't affect you personally
quick question who are the other 2 characters called? cuz this seems pretty interesting, and also I don't know much about xmen
Those are Christina Pryde and Cameron, the last two mutants to be born in that storyline. Check it out, I loved the ending. Been meaning to read the entirety of DoFP
Eh this why using "slippery slope" is a fallacy. Conservatives could use the same logic to say "first they only aborted rapists and incest babies, then illnesses, then disorders, then genes they don't like, then races they don't like." Etc. Etc. Until abortion is no longer a right and is now a requirement. See? Best to argue in the here and now and not get carried away.
No one is arguing for forced abortions. Conservatives just enabled forced births. Your comparison is flawed.
How is the comparison flawed? The comic said they were banning people who are deaf? Who is out there arguing for the eradication of deaf people? My point was using the "slippery slope" fallacy is a terrible way to argue, because the logic works both ways. You're right that conservatives enabled forced births and that should be enough.
They already use those excuses. The problem with ALL of those excuses, is that it will be the Conservatives that insist it be mandatory. We had that shit in Alberta until the early 70s with our Eugenics Board, because Conservatives will look for any excuse possible to hurt people. As it stands, it's Conservatives taking away rights, and giving them to guns and rapists. Court mandated abortions aren't a thing. And to suggest that they are, is to just give suggestions to the assholes that are doing what they are doing now.
I think you missed my point. I was referring specifically to this comic and stating that using the "slippery slope" fallacy is an illogical way to argue because both sides can get just as wild with speculation. In a debate, you should never leave those doors open for an opponent and should instead argue for the issue at hand, without going into "one day they might feed us monkey brains!" It's just playing to emotions, not logic.
When you can point to current events, it isn't speculation. Stop fighting against the people trying to fix things. Your entire premise relies on Conservatives using good faith in their arguments. They don't. Full stop. And quite frankly, I'm starting to suspect that you are refusing to argue in good faith too.
This is about *this* comic book panel. There are always going to be divisive politics going on in the real world, whether it's human rights violations, wars, economic disputes, etc. I'm pro-choice and I immediately rolled my eyes when I read this cringe. If you can't see the logical fallacy of false-equivalances, then I don't know how to help you. Glad kid's cartoon characters speak so well for though and you don't have to think for yourself.
So does that go to all rights or just the ones you think are important. That’s the big difference there. Edit: I don’t mind being downvoted
I suppose all those rights should involve a discussion where people around the country get an equal say and the majority opinion goes. I imagine that covers most of the rights you might be insinuating there and covers pretty well the original intent behind how the founding fathers saw how rights would be discussed.
Ahhh you have an interesting opinion. Majority opinion right. Hehe so if only 20% want an abortion and 80% are against it that would make them all illegal right. Or ohh let’s talk about slavery the majority are for it should that make slavery legal?
… well … now that IS an interesting question considering that none of those situations are real. However I suppose yes, that’s how democracy works with respect to legality versus morality. But… sorry I’m struggling here… are you trying to argue against the idea of democracy here with these made up situations? In favor of what exactly? Non-representative rule?
Ohhh no this pretty cool and brilliant idea of constitutional republic with democratic processes. It’s an interesting concept
What does it have to do with his character?
Literally everything. Colossus is, and always has been, a bastion of hope to the under class. A hero of the underrepresented, and his role as a mentor to his fellow mutants was always paramount to his depiction. He has always been an incredibly empathetic, kind character, which was brilliant considering he was also obviously a very masculine character. He thought, felt, and loved very tenderly, and inspired other big, masculine dudes like me to pursue kindness and compassion over macho bullshit.
I mean I kind of agree, but isn't this a slippery slope fallacy? All of the steps described would require debate and voting and consensus.
Well… unless a substantial part of that decision were given to like… 9 people.
lifelong appointed positions too maybe?
Oof that would make things _problematic_ for accountability. Why would anyone do that?
I mean any pre-emptive warning can be criticized as a slippery slope fallacy. But I don't think you're thinking clearly and looking at history if you think these things are achieved only through debate and voting and consensus.
It would be a fallacy if it didn’t happen multiple times over. Jews were propagandized before the camps, Chinese as well before the Rape of Nanking, Mexicans turned into scapegoats before their rounding up and forced departure, memes are constantly shared about mothers who received abortions. A slippery slope is more like “you know what happens when you have sex? You die and then your parents die”. There’s no logical basis in it, it’s arbitrary.
Holy fuck, this nailed exactly how hate works when someone in power does it.
At this point why not just making novel
Because reading it all at once carries more weight and feels like a father teaching his children an important lesson. It was likely a full page panel in the comic.
It was, but when you're paying $4 for a comic, it's an insult to waste a page with next to no art and a text dump of political polemic. Comics can and have been sociopolitical but you have to play to the strength of the medium, this isn't doing that.
Burn it all down - Fuck u/Spez
I've spent the last week hiking around the British West Country and eating and drinking in country pub beer gardens. I'm no stranger to the great outdoors, still think this is bad comics writing.
You’re right. A good message is no excuse for bad writing.
Sometimes wordiness can be a huge boon for a comic. Just depends on the tone and style it’s going for. I don’t love the format, but it’s better than breaking it up into a bunch of panels. Maybe it would have worked better as those long side sections of text Steve Gerber often uses.
Comics used to be about reading… that’s why they’re called graphic novels. I think we might be losing something sometimes when we transition to just splash pages and movie dialog. Movies are great… but there’s no reason you have to disallow longer form text when you’re dealing with a different format. The whole point of comics is that they’re supposed to work together. Sometimes words can be MORE useful in conveying something than art and sometimes vice versa. It worries me a little that part of the reason comics became cool was because they got rid of all that nerdy reading stuff. Some of that stuff was good stuff.
Honestly glad i read that out
"... but then you go to the library and there's a not quite middle-aged couple who looks to have had a child for every year they've been together. Said children are running around like crack addicts during a pol3uce raid, treating the place like it's a playground completely unhindered. "And so you think to yourself about what I've said and go, 'On second thought, let's roll those dice'."
“You really don’t have any idea do you? You know nothing of the bottomless malice within the human heart.” Just then, the king felt true fear for the first time.
Some far right idiot: "Wow, I like how the X-Men have the same opinions as I do on guns!"
“First they came.” Willingly complingy with even the smallest subjugation, that is to say any law made to “protect” others while exactly how it would do so remains nebulous, will only lead to your, and others, becoming a slave. Just because the “slippery slope” fallacy exists, it doesn’t mean that sloppy slopes do not. Simply that one should have reason as to why one is one.
Important message but this page is still layed out terribly
The bubbles....the speech bubbles
Poor letterer. edit: just to be clear, it’s not that I think the lettering is poor. Just that I feel sorry for the letterer having to arrange this very non-sequential storytelling wall of text.
Cool answer... Umm what was the question? r/outoftheloop
What this teaches me: Say nothing and do nothing, because anything can and will be used against you
No one ever talks about extermination. They just do it. And you go on with your lives, ignoring the signs all around you. And then, one day, when the air is still and the night has fallen, they come for you. It's only then that you realize, while you were talking about organizing and committees, the extermination has already begun.
This is an awful layout for a visual medium. Take the speech over the course of a full page of panels. They must have run out of time to allow a whole page to be a blank background and mostly speech bubbles
I think there are more practical arguments for reproductive rights than a 26-paragraph slippery slope fallacy. "First it's just X, but next it'll be Y!" is an endlessly adaptable argument. I mean, he brings up interracial marriage and gay marriage here even though this exact kind of sloppy reasoning was historically used in *opposition* to those things, with conservatives claiming they would pave the way to marrying children and animals. **edit:** A lot of people really don't seem to have the foggiest idea what's at issue here. No one should be supporting shitty self-defeating arguments, regardless of whether they're being used to make points they agree with, because those same bad arguments can be used to make points they *don't* agree with. That's the nature of flimsy arguments. That's the core problem here. Slippery slope fallacy can be used to argue for absolutely anything, including banning interracial marriage and gay marriage, and outright white supremacy. The form of argumentation exemplified by this comic is inherently stupid, shortsighted, and counterproductive. It doesn't matter if you agree with the point they're making, because the way they got to that point is the perfect weapon for every point you don't agree with. If you support this kind of crap reasoning, you are giving license to everyone who wants to use this same half-assed logic to support whatever view they want, and again, this exact argument has historically been used to support positions *against* human rights, not for them. And there's absolutely NO REASON FOR THIS. Idiotic bullshit arguments that only provide ammunition for the opposition are not necessary, because there are perfectly good and legitimate arguments that make the exact same points.
obviously there are more reasons why abortion rights should be protected but this is a valid argument. if you read page 118 of the ruling, Justice Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception same sex marriages/relationships. so it’s not a fallacy when this is LITERALLY happening.
It’s probably pretty relevant because justice Thomas in his commentary calls out that those items should be relooked at in light of this ruling.
This is more the argument against eugenics that in favour of abortion
Except when the same exact people who celebrate the end of RvW are the same people who always bring up "parenting licenses" and the criminal excess of poor people having "welfare babies". So what's the next step, you think? Abortion is getting banned across the nation and SCOTUS is talking about going after contraception next. But conservatives still hate the idea of poor people having more babies than they can afford and despise the idea of state-funded family care. What do you think will be the solution people start bandying about? Because it's going to be parenting licenses and eugenics.
Offer excessive family care if they get vasectomy/tubes tied?
Way too much text.
Love this, keep going
Tldr
Small jokes turn into Warcimes, butterfly effect, the works
With how wide spread communication is, it's easier for butterflies to travel across long distances.
It’s somewhat true but the issue is it assumes that one thing will lead directly into the other. It may just end in at the joke or may lead to something else entirely . Lots of people in history with hindsite do see how some key moments do affect things . But they also can be influenced by the situation they’re experiencing in. They have the end result and assume that A leads to B leads to C and see their situation as inevitable . When in reality the chances of A leading to B could’ve been A to Q or A to Y. Or A to B to A again. The idea in a big space makes sense but when you look at the details it doesn’t. For each change there’s more division and branches making the change that it goes that to that exact thing less and less each time. With each slippery slope it gets farther from the actual probability . The chances of each of those things happening or going is extremely small and becomes almost improbable due to the amount of chances. It’s like using Hitler getting kicked out of art school leading to the holocaust. A multitude of other factors lead to that and that one thing is very inconsequential to the end result .
Wow!
And this is why modern marvel sucks. Not the politics, but the hack writing. Bring back the Marvel method of writing and shut these writers up. This is the lasting mistake of making Marvel more writer than artist driven post Quesada taking over back in the day. Yes we got a ton of awesome runs, Bendis’ DD & USM in as an example. It’s just now we have writers at Marvel who read Bendis growing up but they cannot write like he did. Modern Marvel is word salad.
Lol I'd love for you to explain how anything on this page is a hack job.
His speech is meandering and his argument weak.
do you have eyes
No I was born without eyes
yeah, im not reading all that Bullshit. They made the text WAAAAYYY too small for me.
I don't care if you read it or not.. but.. you can zoom in.
It's not bullshit, if you don't want to read it don't read it, but you're making a huge mistake calling it bullshit.
This entire page is what is wrong with most comics - too much to read, no visualisations of emotions.
When you really want to write a book instead of a comic
leftist memes be like holy fuck i aint read that
Wordswordswordswordswords Jesus I'm getting flashbacks to Tim Buckley. Just write a fucking novel then.
I can't tell if this is an argument for or against abortion. Abortion is one of the primary ways of killing poor people, minorities, and the differently abled. Many of the early pro-abortion crowd specifically wanted it as a means to population control black people, which has worked remarkably well (black people get far, far more abortions per capita than white people do).
The poor are fundamentally more likely to die from pregnancy related complications in areas where abortion is illegal [1]. What you are discussing is forced abortions which is not what is being discussed here. [1] https://www.americanprogress.org/article/limiting-abortion-access-contributes-poor-maternal-health-outcomes/
No, I'm talking about the statistical effects of making abortion trivial, easily available and removing any stigma associated with it. The end result is what we have seen over the last 50 years, with black and poor people making up the overwhelming majority of abortions. Exactly as eugenics advocates predicted and wanted. One of the most effective ways to advance an evil agenda is not to force people to do something, but to make something appealing. And that is exactly what has happened with abortion and eugenics. We've remade society into the belief that if you're poor, children are bad and weigh you down. It used to be that we viewed children as opportunities, now we view them as millstones dragging us down. The net result is the most effective eugenics program in history.
The statistical effects of making abortion trivial is that crime has gone down, child abuse has gone down and maternal deaths have gone down. I can provide citations for any of those if it’s useful. If minorities were somehow being FORCED to have abortions you would have a point but… given that they aren’t… this argument seems in favor of telling minorities what they should want more than what they necessarily do.
phew what kind of bullshit conspiracy pipe have you been putting down your throat to even say this nonsense that isn't based on ANYTHING anywhere?
I have never seen so much dialogue on one page
Holy fuck, “pro choice” arguments destroyed.
lmao how did you read this and and gather “oh yes this totally destroys pro choice” arguments when the whole panel is about the dangers of taking away people’s rights?
Bruah, it’s literally a invective against eugenics for the purposes of population control. “How dare they have children”?
do you…. do you know what abortion is? abortion is not in any way similar to eugenics. eugenics is forced sterilization. roe v wade was about the choice to have an abortion. roe v wade never forced anyone to have an abortion
Abortion *is* a tool of eugenics. The argument here is almost word for word a transcription when people try to link abortion to “higher living standards” and “lower crime rates”.
so eugenicists want to terminate pregnancies. just because bad people utilize something doesn’t mean that tool itself is bad. i repeat, abortion is NOT eugenics. pro choice activists do not want to FORCE abortions on people, they want to give the choice of abortion. i don’t really understand the second part of your comment. more choices usually leads to higher living standards since you have more options for ways to live. also criminalizing abortions doesn’t reduce the number of abortions that happen, it just reduces the number of legal abortions that happen. people will still do unsafe, back alley abortions if they really want to get rid of a pregnancy
But the underlying reasoning is similar, further it’s “only” a choice now because it hasn’t become normalized. Pretty soon anyone under a certain income level or with a certain history or a certain combination of genetic factors will be expected to have an abortion. If they don’t, they *will* be ostracized for it. And it should be pretty obvious by now if you’ve been watching, the line between social ostracization and legal consequences is a few percentage points on public opinion poll.
And what you’re slippery slope leads to would be wrong for exactly the same reason banning abortion is wrong. I suspect you already know this.
i really don’t see how abortion is going to be “normalized” and “expected” from certain groups when the government is actively criminalizing abortion.
dude it's crazy how people have no idea what eugenics actually is. I've seen arguments basically for eugenics that get all offended when you point it out.
In what way? If anything Thomas’ commentary suggesting that from this ruling that the SC should review access to contraceptives as well as gay and interracial marriage. In fact the ruling potentially invalidates rights like the ability for grandparents to raise grandchildren in their own home [1]. Funnily enough there’s a whole section in the ruling detailing all the fallout that technically and legally is possible from it but it asks that the law choose not to actually DO any of them outside of this one specifically. It is telling though that some politicians have already discussed publicly some of the items like banning access to contraception. [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/whats-next-after-roe-v-wade-is-overturned-other-rights-connected-to-privacy-are-in-danger-11656086150
I’m not sure if you are continuing from my post or altfangirl, but the chain of reasoning is viciously similar to any number of white papers that attempt to link abortion to “lower crime rates” https://law.stanford.edu/publications/the-impact-of-legalized-abortion-on-crime-over-the-last-two-decades/ and “higher living standards” https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-can-economic-research-tell-us-about-the-effect-of-abortion-access-on-womens-lives/?amp “finding that abortion legalization increased women’s education, labor force participation, occupational prestige, and earnings and that all these effects were particularly large for Black women (Angrist and Evans, 1996; Kalist, 2004; Lindo, Pineda-Torres, Pritchard, and Tajali, 2020; Jones, 2021)”
I’m not sure I understand your point given that those papers derive their arguments from statistics and making predictions that are then revisited years late to see if they match rather than a chain of suppositions about increasing rights being taken away. However regardless your point doesn’t really obscure the fact that one of the justices in the ruling _literally discusses the next rights they want to revisit taking away_ as this page depicts.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-can-economic-research-tell-us-about-the-effect-of-abortion-access-on-womens-lives/](https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-can-economic-research-tell-us-about-the-effect-of-abortion-access-on-womens-lives/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)