Headlines

Loading...

wibiya widget

Friday, April 6, 2012

Hello, "Progressive Bloggers?" Open asses. Remove heads.

So apparently the administrators at the so-called "Progressive Bloggers" aggregator are prepared to continue indulging members who think it's worthwhile to have a "debate" about Stephen Woodworth's crusade for "the rights of the unborn."

Well, fuck that, and fuck them, sez I. While we're at it, maybe we can have a "debate" about whether black people should have the same rights as white people?

Have you noticed what's going on to the south, ProgBlog mods? Have you been off the planet for the last couple of years? There's a wholesale war on women, in case you hadn't noticed. Republicans are working to roll back abortion rights and control women's sexuality in almost every state. And you want to crack open the door for that up here? We're supposed to keep the Sewer of Stupid from oozing over the border, not let it roll over us.

News flash, folks: you don't get to entertain a fucking "debate" over whether women control their own bodies and still call yourselves progressive. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, things aren't black and white, there's room for nuance and shades of meaning, and you can't reduce everything to ideological litmus tests ...

No. This time, you can. Either you believe in reproductive freedom and personal autonomy for everyone or you don't. There's no fucking middle ground on this.

So with all due respect to the mods at Progressive Bloggers:



Now it may be, as some commenter suggested over at the National Putz, that this is just

the Harpublicans chumming social conservative waters with a disposable Theo-con MP destined to join Stockwell Day counting angels dancing on the head of a pin

but really, that's neither here nor there. They want to have their little wanker debates and socon circle jerks, they can get a room somewhere. In progressive company, that question was settled a long fucking time ago.

Which means that there's a dirty but unavoidable task in front of us. Words and labels are vital, and it's obvious that we need to be vigilant about their meanings so that they, and the conversation, aren't co-opted and colonized. We cannot allow people who think this way to strip words of their meanings and repurpose them. The admins at the so-called "Progressive Bloggers" need to be put on notice.

Related posts:

8 comments:

  1. Isn't the ability to talk about ideas and concepts rationally, even if you don't agree with your opponent, part of what being progressive means? At the very least, can we not toss around the vitriol and the polarizing rhetoric as much as the conservatives do? OK, for you the debate was settled long ago, and you feel that having a pro-choice stance (or pro-abortion rights stance, to stick closer to your wording) is a key part of being progressive. That's fine, but as you've pointed out, the issue is coming up south of the border, and now the conservatives here are bringing it up, so maybe it's time to talk about it, if only so that the same conclusion can be reached by a new generation of people. Maybe this time with more finality, even. But squashing the debate completely seems counter productive, and anti-progressive.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great post! I am sick to fucking death of listening to these bible huggers. Church and state. Two separate entities. Like oil and water, they don't mix. What's with the meteoric rise of fucking stupidity of late? Are all these ideological trolls crawling out from under their rocks?
    Get back under there, assholes! We have no time for social debates. The Earth needs our attention right now, and you pricks are clogging the airwaves with stupid.
    WOMEN'S RIGHTS NOW. AND FOREVER.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Talk about not talking about it case closed

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tel'Kin this is not about a debate. this is not about a reasoned discussion with valid points and counter-points. this is about one single thing, the stripping of women's right to personal agency and bodily autonomy. there are lots of folks south of the border and no few up here that think non-white people are, to take stephen woodworth's phrase, sub-human. how's a bout we crack that debate open, wouldn't that also be the progressive thing to do? let's entertain every bestial slice of crude idiocy and vileness, after all that wouldn't be counter-productive. child labour! are there no workhouses? slavery! how much for that strong backed boy? rape! look at those hemlines, obviously asking for it. where are you going to draw a line in the sand?

    progressives do not bargain with the rights of the individual to their own body. period. there's your debate fucking well over & done. you're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  5. [M]aybe it's time to talk about it, if only so that the same conclusion can be reached by a new generation of people. Maybe this time with more finality, even.

    More finality than an SCC ruling? Really?

    As OB rightly notes, human rights aren't up for debate -- period.

    The fact that the shit-tastic ProgBlogs mod squad would once again prefer to enable the useful idiocy of intellectual autofellatio aficionados than give even a single solitary inch to the uppity feminazi wing of Progressive Canuckistan is telling (the more things change, etc).

    The actual priorities of so-called allies [sic] are on full fucking display. Redux.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If anyone thinks that an insignificant blogger's inept musings are going to "open the crack in the door", and I don't disagree, then having a provincial government with an official policy of "conscience rights", as espoused by Danielle Smith, is going to open a ideological shitstorm of tsunamic proportions. And you can throw in a nuclear meltdown.

    http://co2-art.blogspot.ca/

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well fucking said, and thank you for saying it loud and clear.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bravo! I'm sure there are some nuances that remain unsettled despite all that the civil rights movement did to emancipate Blacks in the US - NOT. Perhaps progressives should delve into thoughtful debate about the pros and cons of treating minorities as equals - NOT.

    The Charter enshrines certain rights and our courts uphold those rights. Like Mattt underscored above, the SCC has ruled and the case is settled.

    ReplyDelete

Share