NRO's The Corner: Obamacare ‘like a house on fire’ with more flammable parts yet to come

"there exists broad understanding that homosexual people are unavoidable and common"

ha, i was about to highlight that too, caek. what's sad is that this IS as compassionate as NRO gets.

NRO, august 2016:

Here is the world according to the LGBT Left: Just as there are black and white, there are gay and straight. One’s sexual orientation, like one’s race, is fixed and immutable at birth. The process of “questioning” one’s orientation isn’t a process of deciding but of discovering.

Similarly, when it comes to gender identity, there is “cis” and there is “trans.” A cis person’s gender identity matches the sex they were “assigned” at birth. A trans person — well, a trans person is any one of the fifty-plus other genders on the entirely reputable Facebook spectrum.

This, you see, is science. Anyone who contradicts it — whether relying on ancient, discredited “holy” texts or outdated notions of morality — isn’t just ignorant, but bigoted. And when it comes to bigots, why draw minute moral distinctions? Is there really much difference between a Klan member and a Christian conservative?

i think that last sentence was rhetorical.

(https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/08/liberal-views-sexuality-debunked/)

I had started by going back as far as 2003 for lawrence v. texas era material and hoo boy

The Judeo-Christian model, by contrast, is aspirational, calling on people not to do what they want, but what they should. Admittedly, this path is far easier for some than others, but there has always been some play in the cultural joints. The Left’s response is alluring, but it offers a self-indulgent path down which lies cultural ruin. The LGBT Left is driving us there just as fast as it can depress the gas pedal, but thanks to McHugh and Mayer, we now know they most assuredly are not doing so in the name of “science.”

sorry, back to today's article:

Part one of the compromise will be borne by cultural conservatives and traditionalists. It asks for broad tolerance for the reality that transgender men and women exist, and are entitled to basic human dignity, just like everyone else. This does not mean having to morally endorse behavior many may believe runs contrary to God’s plan for a just and healthy society, but it does imply that acts like ostentatiously calling people by pronouns they don’t want, or belittling their personal struggle, are boorish and petty. It means acknowledging that arbitrary discrimination against transgender people is a cruel bigotry like any other.

But part two of the compromise requires sacrifice on the part of progressives, who are currently overplaying their hand in an effort to strong-arm sweeping social change as a flex of their power. There must be a halt in the use of state authority to impose accommodation of transgenderism in a fashion far more totalitarian than is rationally justified. Transgender people constitute a tiny minority of Americans who, in the vast majority of cases, are explicitly eager to opt into the broad two-gender social order our civilization is based around. Tolerance does not necessitate a purge of any and all public manifestations of the gender binary in the name of extreme exceptions to the rule.

wow, FUCK YOU NRO

"Judeo-Christian" is the fucking worst fake idea

pic.twitter.com/la9Nf0NNbh

— David Klion (@DavidKlion) May 8, 2018

No. Normalizing it isn't good, nor what a conservative would do.

— hubris (@Fit_And_Hubris) May 9, 2018

The response didn't take long!

Let me lay down my prediction, here. We are not headed toward some civilized modus vivendi but imminent tragedy. In the future, the current psychological theories and surgical enthusiasms associated with this movement will be regarded with open horror.

The beginning of the end will come when a some poor young man, upon reaching the age of majority, decides to sue the deep-pocketed psychologists, and university hospitals that tried to remake him as female when he was a child according to their enlightened theories about his behavior, destroying the function of his sexual organs, depriving him forever of the chance at fatherhood, and condemning him to a life of yet more surgeries. He will show that in this matter and only this matter did it become accepted to recommend treatments that increase the likelihood of suicide. Do you think the settlement figure will be somewhere in the 9-figures? Lately I’m tempted to guess 10. Imagine the new suggested guidelines from malpractice insurers . . .

Until that day, I’m not going to compromise with this movement, anymore than conservatives should have compromised with the eugenicists and their surgeons.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/transgender-issues-conservatives-should-not-compromise/

conservatives should have compromised with the eugenicists and their surgeons

I lol'd

I mean, conservatives loved eugenics!

so did progressives tbh

it was equal opportunity horseshit

“Depriving [her ] of the chance of fatherhood” lol who gives a shit

you don't understand, it is very very important that we base public policy decisions on nonsensical hypothetical scenarios

An interesting mistake conservatives make about queer liberation and transfeminism is that they are squishy relativist ideologies. It seems like this guy is the one who wants to argue a premise is bad from a bad consequence.

This guy isn’t even doing doctrinaire conservatism right, where’s the doctrine, who hires these facile muttonchop bloglords

surely the proper conservative position is to assert the trans person's responsibility for their own transition and also trial lawyers are thieves

The Judeo-Christian model, by contrast, is aspirational, calling on people not to do what they want, but what they should.

like to introduce this fellow to a little thing called ANCIENT GREEK PHILOSOPHY

far more totalitarian than is rationally justified

uh

how much would be???

Degrees of totalitarianism, huh.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DfHXIc1UYAAcu-P.jpg

jerkoff.gif

Jonah?

bingo

I knew from the ham-scented cargo short emanating from the equivocations.

Apparently Michael Potemra died recently - one of their few writers that I don’t recall ever posting insane bullshit. The commenters hated him, he seemed like a pretty nice guy.

Probably their only poptimist on staff: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/taking-temperature-american-pop/

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dgn5N-_XkAAtUVI.jpg

LOLry has been wonderful the last week.

lol

Roe is judicially wrought social legislation pretending to the status of constitutional law. It is more adventurous than Miranda and Griswold, other watchwords of judicial activism from its era. It is as much a highhanded attempt to impose a settlement on a hotly contested political question as the abhorrent Dred Scott decision denying the rights of blacks. It is, in short, a travesty that a constitutionalist Supreme Court should excise from its body of work with all due haste.

Roe has been commonly misunderstood since it was handed down in 1973, in part because its supporters have been so determined to obscure its radicalism. It is usually thought that Roe only prohibits bans on abortion in the first trimester, when it effectively forbids them at any time, imposing a pro-abortion regime as sweeping as anywhere in the advanced world.

The confusion arises from the scheme set out in the majority opinion, written by the late Justice Harry Blackmun. In the first trimester, the Court declared, the right to abortion was absolute. In the second, states could regulate it to protect the mother’s health. In the third, states could restrict abortion in theory, but had to allow exceptions to protect the life or health of the mother, defined capaciously in the accompanying case of Doe v. Bolton to include “emotional, psychological, familial” considerations, as well as “the woman’s age.”

Roe struck down 50 state laws and has made it all but impossible to regulate abortion, except in the narrowest circumstances. More to the point, the argument that its particular set of policy preferences is mandated by the Constitution is flatly preposterous.

I'm surprised LOLwry didn't quote Ginsberg.

have to say I am adamantly pro-choice but yeah the legal reasoning behind Roe has always seemed weak/a bit of a head-scratcher to me

Yeah, I'm not against the argument that it's a messy fix that leaves the door open to catastrophic rollbacks.

I'm not sure how you re-litigate this case (a) with this Congress (b) this Court

unsuccessfully!

we'll never get a federal law legalizing abortion, I just don't see the legislative majorities lining up that way. which means this gets back to the states, which means abortion will be legal in CA, NY etc and illegal in huge swathes of the country.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhL93tLX0AAd9V8.jpg

ah yes, who could forget the main problem with dred scott - that it attempted to settle one of the outstanding legal questions of its day

Always seeing these fucking cheesedicks pretend they wouldn't have 100% supported the Dred Scott decision at the time it was issued makes me so angry I could bite through rebar.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dh7M-5dX4AAZXlN.jpg:small

when you thrust your kids into a deep wet cave you'd better be prepared to deal with consequences, writes mona charen

Abort the mothers, that'll stop them

you never know, you might abort the next elon musk

Stopped clock!

If you want to understand one difference between the 18th & 19th century and the 20th & 21st century, think of it this way: If cable news had existed 200 years ago, there would be very few lawyers on cable news and an enormous number of pastors, ministers and priests.

— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahNRO) July 25, 2018

you should read Kevin Williamson on how Trump and.....FDR are remarkably similar.

pass

And verily do I say....lol

How many NR writers or editors involved in this issue have actually read the Orwell piece this cover quotes, where he argues that socialists should infiltrate and subvert conservative/military influence over the Home Guard to turn it into an instrument of left insurrection? pic.twitter.com/Yzh3RojVm8

— Dan Trombly (@stcolumbia) August 10, 2018

Looking forward to NR's article on why AnComs should actually join the National Guard so they can acquire further access to heavy weapons and turn it into a heavily-armed antifa force during an upcoming period of national crisis.

I hope this is a sign that American conservatives are becoming acquainted with the true importance of the right to bear arms, which is to ensure that the zavkom can properly provision the Red Guards and Kerensky's jailbirds to smash counterrevolutionary elements.

In all seriousness, beyond jokes I could make about NR being new conservative crypto-Trot mag, it's rich to see the mag that ran a denouncement of antifa as a cover story ~15mo ago invoke the legacy of a far more radical (failed) armed antifa project in defense of US gun culture.

As the NRA's increasing pivot to propaganda videos that barely mention guns at all and instead rant about violent antifa protesters and socialism demonstrate, the modern right doesn't actually believe in the sentiment Orwell is articulating here about the armed populace.

Faced with a modern left antifascist street movement that is far less violent than the left of Orwell's day, let alone their 70s-90s UK successors, the right unsurprisingly sides w/cops enforcing order & wannabe Freikorps auxiliaries. Not surprising, but own your own viewpoint.

Anyway elsewhere in this issue you can read Jonah Goldberg talk about how leftists are stupid for approaching cultural touchstones with an attitude to just confirm their priors regardless of the author's intended message. pic.twitter.com/L1m5xUqtDj

— Dan Trombly (@stcolumbia) August 10, 2018