FSTDT

Pedro Afonso #wingnut #dunning-kruger observador.pt

Donald Trump’s victory in the US elections has exposed the bias of many commentators in our media, revealing the need to reflect on the type of political analysis that currently predominates. Although there are exceptions, it is worth mentioning some “qualities” that have been highly valued in political commentary, which tend to privilege spectacle and polarization over depth and impartiality.

The first quality of a good political commentator is to have no doubts and to assume that he is rarely wrong, demonstrating unshakable confidence. In a complex world full of subtleties, the fashionable commentator presents his opinions with an almost dogmatic certainty. He has no doubts, and if he is mistaken, this error is quickly explained by a conspiracy theory, evoking, for example, the manipulation of public opinion by a biased algorithm of a social network. This narcissistic confidence conveys confidence to the public, who see in the figure of the commentator an anchor of stability and absolute truth.

A good political commentator is one who does not shy away from confrontation, who actively seeks heated debate, transforming exchanges of opinions into a gladiatorial battle in which “you either die or you are killed”. Their goal is not so much to clarify, but rather to win, marked by the humiliation of the opponent and the applause of the public. This combative stance guarantees audience and media relevance. By transforming the debate into a circus spectacle, the political commentator fulfills the role of entertainment, something that often seems to take precedence over the informative function.

In an environment where polarization dominates discourse, the eloquent political commentator knows how to draw on an arsenal of terms designed to disqualify opposing views. “Phobic” is one such epithet that, when used strategically, is particularly effective. Any criticism or disagreement can quickly be categorized as a “phobia”: xenophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia, etc. This rhetorical ploy allows the political commentator to divert from the substance of the discussion, focusing instead on disqualifying the opponent. After all, if the other side is “phobic,” it loses its legitimacy, and the public is led to view such an opinion as intolerant and retrograde.

Pedro Afonso #forced-birth #wingnut #dunning-kruger observador.pt

Those who advocate legalising abortion consider it a right; a civilisational achievement. French President Emmanuel Macron himself has proposed that the “right to abortion” be included among the rights guaranteed by the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, this is not just a question of one right, but rather a conflict between two rights: the mother’s right to abort and the unborn baby’s right to live.

Some 15 years after abortion was legalized in our country, we know that there are many people who believe that an embryo or fetus is not a human life (at least up to 10 weeks), and that it is a woman's right to decide to have an abortion. In the case of the Roe v. Wade ruling , abortion is admissible up to the stage of viability of the fetus; that is, until its ability to survive outside the mother's womb, which prolongs the possibility of abortion. Note the weakness of this argument: even “the viability of the newborn” is only guaranteed through the care of third parties (by the mother, father or other people who replace them). This would mean that, based on this line of argument, infanticide could be legalized.

If we do not consider that life begins at the moment of conception and that an embryo is unequivocally a human being, then the value of intrauterine life and its defense becomes extremely volatile. Ultimately, the beginning of all rights and guarantees, as a human person, ends up being established by arbitrary criteria that may vary over time, for reasons of convenience.

Excluding cases of antisocial personalities, the decision to have an abortion is a difficult one, made under tragic and often traumatic conditions. Over time, various psychological and psychiatric problems may arise that justify clinical monitoring. Anyone who says otherwise is falsifying the truth of the facts, as they have certainly never heard individual accounts of this experience, nor witnessed the suffering of these people in real life. For a woman, even when performed in a legal context, an abortion is never forgotten. Defending it as a human right is a civilizational setback, as it is denying the first of fundamental rights: the right to life.

Pedro Afonso #forced-birth #wingnut #dunning-kruger observador.pt

The draft ruling by the US Supreme Court (ST) — cleverly made public through a leak —, which defends the change in the jurisprudence of the Roe v. Wade (1973) ruling, preventing restrictive state regulations on the practice of abortion, has relaunched the debate on the legalization of abortion.

The various protest initiatives, some of which have involved violence, directed at pro-life movements and even some US Supreme Court judges, are signs of coercion and intolerance that are unacceptable in a democracy and a State governed by the rule of law. In today's world, it is very difficult to discuss this issue and challenge political correctness.

Let’s start with the use of euphemisms. Many people don’t realize that language can be corrupted to give a positive spin to an ethically reprehensible concept or behavior. The use of the term “termination of pregnancy” conveys the idea that the pregnancy could be resumed at any time, but that is not possible. It is an irreversible decision; it is not a suspension, but an end. But today, society is full of euphemisms: “voluntary termination of pregnancy” (instead of abortion), “gender self-determination” (instead of gender dysphoria), “assisted dying” (instead of euthanasia), etc.

The main argument used by those in favor of legalizing abortion is the woman's choice (curiously, the man's choice is never mentioned, since there is also a father); in other words, freedom. The use of the word “freedom” is a kind of safe conduct to do whatever one wants, offering legislative support to a veritable nihilistic avalanche that is currently being observed in the Western world, with the approval of political parties (probably, in our country, the next legislative initiative will be the legalization of euthanasia).

In this case, the political strategy is simple and clever: freedom is used as an absolute argument. No one dares to attack “freedom”, otherwise they are labelled with a series of unflattering epithets, such as “fascist”, “retrograde”, “oppressor”, etc. In fact, this is the same argument used to defend euthanasia. There are those who argue that the various rights that a person has are inviolable, including the will to end one’s own life. However, not everything I choose is suitable for me, just as not everything I intend to choose is ethically acceptable.