why does US law have articles to specifically protect one ethnic group instead of being generic and protecting them all?

▲

jdross 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

They do. The law is literally that you must equally protect all groups

▲

hackyhacky 4 days ago | parent [-]

Correct. However, the current administration is interested in enforcing the law about discrimination only against one group.

	▲	UncleMeat 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		And they aren't even doing that. The administration doesn't give a shit about jewish people. It cares about hurting lefties and has decided that "pro-palestine efforts are anti-semitic" is a cudgel they can use to do that.
	▲	verzali 4 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I wonder how many jewish researchers lost their funding here and in the other cases. Seems like a misguided approach if this is what they really care about.
	▲	fuzzfactor 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That's a misguided political party for you. Looks to me like they've got their sights on a lot more than one group, some are just more obvious than others.

▲

elcritch 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They do to my knowledge, the quote is the specific violation of the civil rights act.

▲

frob 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Thw law is very obviously being abused here by Trump and his administration to punish unfavored speech and unfavored groups. They dont care about equal protection one bit. They want to punish academics and universities so that Trump et al can controll their speech.

▲

sjsdaiuasgdia 4 days ago | parent [-]

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

▲

fuzzfactor 4 days ago | parent [-]

Nope, that's more like trumpery. Well-recognized for centuries before the current crop of Trumps was even born:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trumpery

OTOH "Conservatism" is simply the desire to hold on to, or conserve what there currently is, rather than progress toward something different.

Whether the progress is for the better or worse or even if anybody knows for sure.

Truly the opposite of "progressive". Neither one inherently good or bad.

And as can be seen, an indication of the relative greatness of American leaders who can be judged by their ability to wisely balance the interests of all citizens. The US has a history of exceptional true leaders since the beginning, but not every single one. Some have been far from saintly, and some not even suitable for a free country.

Quite a lot of times neither conservative nor progressive seem like as much of a driving force unless their hallmarks are in decline to the point where some things that were perceived as precious to conserve or progress toward or beyond had already been lost to a certain extent, or otherwise under increased threat.

Edit: not my donvote btw

▲

mindslight 4 days ago | parent [-]

Thank you. We really need to stop letting the fascists/reactionaries cloak themselves in this label of conservative. They're a radical reactionary movement with the main goal of tearing down our societal institutions and effectively destroying America's standing in the world - the polar opposite of conservatism.

Letting them continue to think of themselves as conservative assuages their own cognitive dissonance as to what they're actually supporting. It's plainly dishonest to call all of our institutions corrupt, point to some imagined rosy snapshot of the past 70+ years ago, and then claim you're merely conservative. The conservative slogan would be Keep America Great. Theirs isn't.

	▲	theendisney 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		One of the things parties around the world have been successful at (as opposed to creating favorable law) is distorting and watering down other parties from within. Labor is anti laborer. Democrats are anti democrat, republicans hate the free market, conservatives want to change everything etc

▲

4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]