Would love to be a fly in the wall on her next confession
I actually don’t trust any religious converts, I feel like they end up being zealots.
She converted because she was a big debate club nerd who got into theology. Which is somehow worse than being a trad cath weirdo. Like somehow I'd have more respect if she took the red scare Dasha path (meme yourself from anti-woke to right wing to trad cath)
I knew she was fucked up when I listened to that old chapo episode where she called Ausgustine of Hippo her greatest influence which left Matt speechless
tbf Matt probably was more pissed that she said him and not some other contemporary theologian who Matt does like. The man loves getting esoteric
that’s really the best you’re ever going to get out of a religious person and a fine stance imo
ok.....fuck her then? 'that's really the best you're going to get from a Nazi' is not really much of a defense.
this level of leniency would never be afforded to a nonwhite 'leftist'. FUCK. HER.
That isn't true. If a pink tide latam politician from a catholic country had this opinion it would be a non-issue.
I really don't think it's helpful to the discourse to insist there is only one acceptable way to look at what is fundamentally a philisophical position. The question of when along the process a life has been created is not a question with An Answer, people are allowed to disagree. If you believe a current policy is one that kills human lives, it's only consistent to think that the policy is immoral. That doesn't mean you have to think your belief should be written into law to override people who have different beliefs, which she doesn't.
the best you’re ever going to get out of a religious person
yes
a fine stance
no
Remember when everyone tried to kick her out of DSA over this and it turned out she wasn't even a member and has never been a member and people were upset they couldn't boot her out
That is, in fact, still unclear because it dodges the very meat of the question, which is whether or not abortions should be legal. This is like saying you don't want drugs to be criminalised but without stating whether they should be legalised. It leaves both in a state of legislative limbo, where abortions are not illegal, but not expressly allowed, enshrined, protected, or otherwise entitled under the law. This might still mean that if someone wants an abortion they may still need to travel elsewhere or get a back alley abortion with less than safe methods.
To keep the drug analogy, this is like decriminalisation of drugs where people may not be expressly prosecuted for drugs, but they can still only be accessed via trafficking and black market methods, leaving those suffering from addiction at the mercy of dealers and those who want to take drugs again at the mercy of dealers who will unscrupulously sell drugs cut with literal poison because there's no oversight or legally enforced standards for production.
The same applies here. I don't know how hard it is for Liz to just say "I support safe, legal abortions for whoever wants it, even if I personally would never avail of those services", but that's the issue here, she's just constantly circling and skirting endlessly around the crux of the argument saying everything but the relevant part, which is why people are getting pissed off about it.
No, not necessarily. If something isn't specifically enshrined it will need to be decided by courts and a legal precedent set. Even then, it's not a codified law as such, just a legal cutout. Which is in some ways what the status quo was in regards to RvW. The last thing anyone needs is to consult a lawyer as to whether or not their necessary medical procedure is legal. There could be a case made that the wording of a law that explicitly defines abortion as "not illegal" rather than "legal" would mean it's legal, but I'd have to ask what the purpose of such a law would be. Ultimately, what activists want is a codified law that unequivocally grants access to reproductive healthcare, including abortions, etc, not a legal grey area to be determined by the whims of a court and the specific biases of a judge
yeah lol. anything else is legalistic pedantry. she specifically mentions the prosecution of abortion in the tweet. people in the habit of reading tweets just wanna stay :angery: about stuff
I never get why anybody cares about Liz Bruenig. Why does her opinion matter? Does she have more influence than other writers? Or is she like the Susan Serandon of the left?
Doesn’t she put out NYT columns from time to time? If so that’s probably why she remains a bit more relevant. Her husband is also the Economic Policy Institute guy.
I know she's written for the NYT, but she's a minor columnist. Matt Yglesias and Brett Stephens have way more undeserved clout and worse opinions, but Liz Bruenig gets more criticism.
There's a reason she deletes her old tweets as a matter of course. It's because internet leftists like us have a hard time tolerating people we almost agree with.
I think a lot of people disagree with her because she has weird reactionary takes and is not a socialist.
Matt Yglesias and Brett Stephens have way more undeserved clout and worse opinions, but Liz Bruenig gets more criticism.
lol are you serious?
Liz Bruenig is the source of more Twitter drama but I'm unaware if Brett Stephens even tweets
not to sound like a MetaFilter lib but i think internet users are just weird about women and project a lot of expectations onto strangers who happen to be female
She's pro-life and she thinks that abortion is "morally abhorrent". Her stance may have softened over the years, apparently her mother was once pro-life but was upset at the Dobbs decision, she's said she dislikes the Dobbs decision as well. She did so by saying a lack of social welfare is a part of it, but fwiw her and her husband kind of do that all the time, like there could be a clear moral stance and they'll take some weird 8-dimensional logic guy socdem stance to reach the same conclusion.
Regardless, I believe her that she didn't want abortion criminalized, but mostly because she's a big softie at heart. Tacit support of a very radical movement that wants to imprison doctors and people who see abortions with the unrealistic expectation they wouldn't do that is exactly how we got to this point.
In a thread the other day I asked why she deleted her tweets and some people made fun of me. "Log off" and crap.
But it was very useful that Hexbears pointed our she and her husband use scripts to delete their tweets. I didn't know that. I wasn't somehow "triggered" by her deleted tweets. I only wondered what was up. It's very suspicious to me when people who get paid to write also hide their shit. Why? They make their living sharing their shit.
I have to wonder now if the answers I got four days ago where only half-right. I certainly believe she and her husband use scripts on a regular basis. But I think they also nuke their shit whenever they like. And she felt like it yesterday. I could be wrong but I find it hard (if not impossible) to believe they only used automated scripts set for every ~24 hours. Who does that? Once a week or so? Sure, that's believable. But every ~24 hours? Nope.
The tweet is dated just yesterday and now all her tweets are gone again. I assume she's playing games that she's pro-abortion curious so she and her husband don't lose income because they are actually anti-abortion and their subscription base is surely mostly leftists.
I'm too online and have followed the Bruenigs for a while, and I can confirm that they do indeed have a script that nukes tweets set to run every 24 hrs. Been that way for a couple of years now
I guess I was lead astray by dumb luck. I must have checked her account and her husband's account a grand total of ~8 times last year and they always had tweets. I still think she's playing games and now I think she's also petty. Maybe she prefers to tweet something controversial about 5 hours before the auto-delete.
It's like when you look at a redditor's history and you think - is this person using this account as an alt so they can use their real "voice" which is annoying and obnoxious? I think so.
Gotta be honest fam, I don't think any of that is reality. I think in all likelihood her tweets simply autodeleted. They do keep a few older tweets on the time line, so that may be what's throwing you
I'm pretty sure she's a petty, anti-abortion, fundie socialist. But it's certainly not a hill I'm prepared to die on. And it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong anyway.
But I can't resist paying attention to her for about a week or so. Maybe I'll get dunk tank material or maybe I'll just get very bored and I will have wasted my time.
This has always been her position: "I'm personally against abortion, but it should not be illegal in any way"
Not news
iirc she takes the stance that she wouldn't personally get an abortion because of her beliefs but doesn't support an abortion ban.
