I think what's interesting is the moral policing is no longer coming from the religious right.
I recommend "The Realignment" podcast which often discusses why this shift has occurred: https://the-realignment.simplecast.com/
I recommend "The Realignment" podcast which often discusses why this shift has occurred: https://the-realignment.simplecast.com/
The right (religious and otherwise) hasn't reduced it's policing of ideological orthodoxy at all.
Now, if you threw “exclusively” into that sentence, there might be something like a point.
I have, for actual kids (as in children, not young adults), including lately. Usually for something like “their mother has an OnlyFans page”.
> A, B and C v Ireland is a landmark 2010 case of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to privacy under Article 8. The court rejected the argument that article 8 conferred a right to abortion
Or maybe the Overton window has just shifted very left in the US about what social issues are human rights and what can properly be decided by legislative majorities?
And if far-right ACB were successful in making the right to privacy in the US similar to the one under the European Convention on Human Rights, the US states would be free to draw the line for on-demand abortions without any medical emergencies at 12-13 weeks, like nearly all European countries do and 70% of Americans support, instead of at 22-26 weeks, as is required by Roe. https://www.france24.com/en/20180525-abortion-laws-vary-eu-i.... https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-...
Of course, overturning Roe isn’t really in the cards. There are just 3 votes for it. In June Medical just two Justices, (not including ACB, who was not yet on the Court) signaled a willingness to overturn Roe. Unlike deciding a case in the first instance, overruling an existing precedent is an act of discretion. A Justice who disagrees with the merits can (and likely will) still support to uphold the precedent.
Much more likely than ACB overturning Ginsberg’s legacy with respect to abortion is ACB upholding Ginsberg’s legacy with respect to the Equal Protection Clause. At the ACLU, Ginsberg built that legacy on a textualist interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, challenging laws that discriminated against men supposedly to benefit women as violations of equal protection. Under the current progressive worldview, that literal interpretation of “equal” treatment under the law will prove an impediment to importing critical theory into the law. That area, where the precedent isn’t as clear cut, is much more likely to be an area where ACB has an impact.
> > A, B and C v Ireland is a landmark 2010 case of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to privacy under Article 8. The court rejected the argument that article 8 conferred a right to abortion
Article 8 states:
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
COTUS A14 states:
...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
The latter is clearly broader.
>the US states would be free to draw the line for on-demand abortions without any medical emergencies at 12-13 weeks,
A farcical conjecture, when we all know the actual likely outcome.
I think it still is, it just isn't a monopoly?
If you look at the history of 20th century, you may find a number of instances when e.g. Communism was professed (and enforced) with a truly religious fervor and lack of doubt. Ironically, the same thing happens time and again to Atheism.
Insofar as right-wing people now invoke the liberal notions of free expression it’s only because that was a middle ground that allowed coexistence and liberals are now sitting aside while progressives try to blow up that compromise. (And also because a bunch of center right people think it’s a good thing—it’s not like the right is uniformly absolutist evangelical types).
Put differently, Christian evangelical are angry that liberals broke all these taboos in the name of free expression, and now progressives are trying to treat Christian evangelical beliefs as the basis for cancellation. There is nothing hypocritical or contradictory about this.
Go look at these arguments about confederate statues. Liberals condemn the moral faults of the person. Conservatives excuse it as values of the time; moreover they appeal to the virtue the society has chosen for the statue to represent. There’s nothing more post modern than that.
From your post, it seems your view is that conservatives adopted these tools because they are the tools of an oppressed minority, which conservatives now perceive themselves to be. I think that very well might be the right explanation. But I also wonder if this shift is more of a demographics thing. Post modernism can’t be the young, hip mindset for the rest of human history. I wonder if young people today are carving out some new view of the world, which is far more interesting to me than arguments over celebrity Twitter accounts.
Free expression of contrary views is also important (though not ALL contrary views). What I think will happen is further Balkanization of the internet. We can’t all play in the exact same sandbox. Echo chambers are not new - people lived within distinct communities before the internet. I lived in a 50/50 liberal conservative town growing up and I interacted with only other kids of conservatives outside of school.
Now if we could have platforms that didn’t reward shallow engagements maybe we could get somewhere.
... and that is precisely why I find HN (despite its flaws) to be one of the most interesting places for discourse. The aggressive moderation by dang and friends gives this forum a coherence that is hard to find anywhere else.