Bestbuy discriminating against Christians recorded.

[KCfromNC]

Which one would you like an example for?

You can find the clips of Gov Whitmer saying "birthing persons" and "mensurating people" instead of just saying "women".

She's not the only one
Representative Cori Bush of Missouri used the term birthing people in a hearing

Oh no, people using words different from what we wanted them to. That's obvious radicalism.

With regards to the affirming care for children, those aren't things that right-wingers are saying, that's coming right from the White House

FACT SHEET: White House Honors Transgender Day of Visibility | The White House

Today, in honor of Transgender Day of Visibility, the Biden-Harris Administration is uplifting transgender communities—and especially transgender kids and their families—by celebrating their resilience in the face of hateful anti-transgender laws being advanced across the country. Since...

www.whitehouse.gov

Supporting the best judgement of the medical community hardly seems like radical liberalism. I mean, we learn new things, it doesn't have to be scary. Especially when it is simply about a medical condition that other people suffer from.

Might as well be trying to make political points by misleading messaging about new treatments for childhood cancer or whatever. Sure, some low information voters are going to fall for it, but it is just going to alienate the votes the GOP needs to actually win an election.

One of the DNC's platform pages lists wanting to repeal the Hyde Amendment and allow for taxpayer funding for abortions. And numerous democratic politicians have said they don't want there to be any gestational limit for elective abortion procedures.

That has been going on for decades. Hardly an example of the recent radicalization of the Democratic party.

Chuck Schumer (certainly not an outlier in the party... he's the Senate Majority Leader) and Senator Blumenthal introduced a Senate bill to attempt to remove all restrictions on abortion. (and 49 of the Democratic senators voted for it)

Given all the attempts to blame Democrats for the GOP's overreactions, seems kinda hypocritical to not do the same in this case where the opposite would be a good excuse.

With regards to police rhetoric, House Roll Call 216:
(H. Con. Res. 40) Expressing support for local law enforcement officers and condemning efforts to defund or dismantle local law enforcement

...only 4 democrats voted for it, all the rest said no.

Ignoring GOP political grandstanding isn't an example of the radicalization of the Democratic party.

How about some of their social media posts?

The ones explaining how they're interested not in destroying law enforcement (despite the accusations by far-right infotainment sources) but in making policing better serve the community and have the justice system work for rehabilitation? Doesn't seem like a particularly radical idea.

Again, goes to my point that looking at what Democrats are actually saying gives a quite different view that knee-jerk reactions to labels given to their views by GOP messaging.

 

[KCfromNC]

If you give the average voter only 2 choices, it makes sense that people are just going to go with the one that's closer to them (even if it's just slightly closer than the other guy)

This discounts what's been happening to more moderate GOP candidates in their primaries.

And the Pew research I posted shows the results of the that radicalization of elected GOP officials.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This discounts what's been happening to more moderate GOP candidates in their primaries.

And the Pew research I posted shows the results of the that radicalization of elected GOP officials.

There's a regional component that needs to be factored in.

Moderate GOP candidates seem to do pretty well in gubernatorial elections and house/senate races in certain regions.

And you have governors (even ones who run in more traditionally conservative states) who managed to win despite deliberately distancing themselves from Trump.

In my own state of Ohio, DeWine handily beat the "Trump-picked" person they were trying to primary him with. As did Kemp in Georgia when they tried to primary him by running the "Trump-approved" David Purdue.


And while that attitude of "let's primary the person if they're not ideologically pure enough" may not have caught on to the same degree on the DNC side yet, the idea seems to have been gaining traction on the left side of the fence as well. AOC is the result of primarying a moderate democrat for their house seat. And there's been quite a bit of chatter around the idea of primarying Democrats like Manchin and Sinema.


With regards to more radical republicans winning in some places, some of that is by design and part of the DNC strategy.

https://www.npr.org/2022/11/11/1135878576/the-democrats-strategy-of-boosting-far-right-candidates-seems-to-have-worked

Basically the DNC was giving funds to the more extreme republican candidates in hopes that they would be easier to beat in a general. In some instances, that backfired either in the form of the person actually winning, or in the form of a rather extreme candidate getting "platformed" when they otherwise wouldn't have had the resources to do so.

On other end of that pendulum, it would appear the DNC wasted a lot of money as well on the false assumption that "republicans will gravitate to the more extreme".
In September, an analysis by The Washington Post found that seven of 13 Democrat-backed Republican candidates lost their primaries after having more than a combined $12 million spent on their behalf.

So, in more cases than not, the republican primary voters didn't take the bait and opted for the more moderate primary option.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Oh no, people using words different from what we wanted them to. That's obvious radicalism.

Isn't the notion of "pronoun rules" the exact thing you're referring to? People getting agitated because someone else isn't the words they prefer?

Supporting the best judgement of the medical community hardly seems like radical liberalism. I mean, we learn new things, it doesn't have to be scary. Especially when it is simply about a medical condition that other people suffer from.

The contention is over whether or not those recommendations are actually "the best judgement", or if they're playing into a political cause.

Given that these conversations about trans-identifying youth are very new (with regards to national conversation), and just a few years ago, it was still listed on the DSM as "Gender Dysphoria" and treated like a condition they still didn't have a good answer for, I think a certain level of skepticism about their recent 180 on the subject is fair.

If the "best judgement" designation is accurate, then it would be a unique outlier with regards to mental health sciences.

I can't think of any other mental health scenario in which it went from "new" to "yep, we've got it solved, this is the best way to address it, no need to look into it any further" in a matter of 3-5 years.

It also seems as if it's the only mental health situation in which the medical scientific community has been willing to accept such a low bar for what constitutes an "effective treatment".

It'd be like if, in the infancy of bipolar depression research, because they found that a hug and speaking in a calming voice had some small benefit, they stopped right there and said "Yep, hugs are the best solution, end of discussion...in fact, we shouldn't even call it a condition anymore because there's a stigma associated with it"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Upending society? Completely redefining the English language? There's exaggeration for effect, hyperbole and then there's complete nonsense. We're talking about people using what is in effect courtesy titles for work colleagues or friends and family.

'Hi, this is Mary. She's starting in accounts today. Can you all welcome her to the office?'
'No. I don't think Mary is a real woman. I'll be using he and him when I refer to the new guy.'

Are you seriously suggesting that that is an example of someone preventing the collapse of society? You may, for whatever reason, think that transgenderism is 'wrong'. That people who transgender are mentally ill. Even that the concept of gender is a complete fabrication. I don't care. I will expect anyone who is working with Mary to show respect and some basic decency.

Nobody is asking you to chip in for her medical bills. Nobody is telling you that you have to have her and her partner over for dinner. Nobody is demanding that you support any organisations associated with lgbtq. What people are asking you to do is show some respect.

With regards to language, it's not just the example you provided, it actually goes much further.

Take this list from Stanford for example...part of their proposed initiative for "removing triggering words from the workplace":

https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguage.pdf

And to say that nobody is asking anyone else to chip in for the bills, that one's simply not true.

Medicare covers it, and there are people pushing for "Medicare for all"

In essence, anyone who holds both the positions of "affirmation care is healthcare" and "we should have taxpayer funded universal healthcare" is, in fact, asking people to chip in on the bills. There's no way to side step that one.

 

[KCfromNC]

Isn't the notion of "pronoun rules" the exact thing you're referring to?

I thought the complaint was that someone happened to use terms like

"birthing persons" and "mensurating people" instead of just saying "women"

Seems like we're jumping around a bit to try and find anything to point to the idea that mainstream Democratic policies have become radicalized.

People getting agitated because someone else isn't the words they prefer?

Yes, good summary of the right-wing "people are lying by not self-identifying with the words I wished they did" culture war trope. Not sure how this provides an example of democrats' policies becoming radicalized, though.

The contention is over whether or not those recommendations are actually "the best judgement", or if they're playing into a political cause.

"Playing into a political issue" seems to sum up the GOP attempts to legislate what doctors can and can't do. Not sure how this provides an example of democrats' policies becoming radicalized, though.

If the "best judgement" designation is accurate, then it would be a unique outlier with regards to mental health sciences.

I can't think of any other mental health scenario in which it went from "new" to "yep, we've got it solved, this is the best way to address it, no need to look into it any further" in a matter of 3-5 years.

It also seems as if it's the only mental health situation in which the medical scientific community has been willing to accept such a low bar for what constitutes an "effective treatment".

These are all interesting assertions from a layman about best practices in mental health. Not sure how this provides an example of democrats' policies becoming radicalized, though.

It'd be like if, in the infancy of bipolar depression research, because they found that a hug and speaking in a calming voice had some small benefit, they stopped right there and said "Yep, hugs are the best solution, end of discussion...in fact, we shouldn't even call it a condition anymore because there's a stigma associated with it"

I think the better analogy the the far-right actions in this case would be "we don't know if hugs are good are not, best to actively legislate to make them illegal". Not sure how this provides an example of democrats' policies becoming radicalized, though.

 

[SimplyMe]

Isn't the notion of "pronoun rules" the exact thing you're referring to? People getting agitated because someone else isn't the words they prefer?

The contention is over whether or not those recommendations are actually "the best judgement", or if they're playing into a political cause.

Given that these conversations about trans-identifying youth are very new (with regards to national conversation), and just a few years ago, it was still listed on the DSM as "Gender Dysphoria" and treated like a condition they still didn't have a good answer for, I think a certain level of skepticism about their recent 180 on the subject is fair.

If the "best judgement" designation is accurate, then it would be a unique outlier with regards to mental health sciences.

I can't think of any other mental health scenario in which it went from "new" to "yep, we've got it solved, this is the best way to address it, no need to look into it any further" in a matter of 3-5 years.

It also seems as if it's the only mental health situation in which the medical scientific community has been willing to accept such a low bar for what constitutes an "effective treatment".

It'd be like if, in the infancy of bipolar depression research, because they found that a hug and speaking in a calming voice had some small benefit, they stopped right there and said "Yep, hugs are the best solution, end of discussion...in fact, we shouldn't even call it a condition anymore because there's a stigma associated with it"

Your history of transsexuals is completely wrong. Yes, the term used to diagnose transsexuals has changed somewhat -- two or three different times -- but the idea of surgery has been the accepted "cure" since at least the 70s. In fact, I'd aruge the main difference is that the idea of less surgery caught on more recently (though still at least a decade ago), where people only partially transition and get to a stage their comfortable, rather than making everyone get full sex-reassignment surgery.

The big change in the last 3-5 years is that Republicans decided to make it a political issue.

 

[Pommer]

I thought the complaint was that someone happened to use terms like

"birthing persons" and "mensurating people" instead of just saying "women"

Seems like we're jumping around a bit to try and find anything to point to the idea that mainstream Democratic policies have become radicalized.



Yes, good summary of the right-wing "people are lying by not self-identifying with the words I wished they did" culture war trope. Not sure how this provides an example of democrats' policies becoming radicalized, though.



"Playing into a political issue" seems to sum up the GOP attempts to legislate what doctors can and can't do. Not sure how this provides an example of democrats' policies becoming radicalized, though.



These are all interesting assertions from a layman about best practices in mental health. Not sure how this provides an example of democrats' policies becoming radicalized, though.


I think the better analogy the the far-right actions in this case would be "we don't know if hugs are good are not, best to actively legislate to make them illegal". Not sure how this provides an example of democrats' policies becoming radicalized, though.

“Everything is politics”≠”everything has equal value in politics”

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Your history of transsexuals is completely wrong. Yes, the term used to diagnose transsexuals has changed somewhat -- two or three different times -- but the idea of surgery has been the accepted "cure" since at least the 70s. In fact, I'd aruge the main difference is that the idea of less surgery caught on more recently (though still at least a decade ago), where people only partially transition and get to a stage their comfortable, rather than making everyone get full sex-reassignment surgery.

The big change in the last 3-5 years is that Republicans decided to make it a political issue.

Well, I'd argue that big change in the last 3-5 years is that this started being discussed in the context of people who were under 18, and when the sports & locker room debates started happening.

And it's not fair to suggest that "Republicans made it a political issue".

Whichever side that's demanding public funding for something and insisting that something get special protection is the side that's making something a political issue.

The moment someone says "I think this is a healthcare issue, and I think the government should provide healthcare", they forfeit the right to accuse the other side of "making it political"

People on the left accusing the right of making transgender debates "a political issue" are engaging in the same kind of disingenuous gaslighting as people on the right who accuse people on the left of "making school shootings political".

Furthermore, I'd say that whichever side is demanding the biggest shift from the norm (that has political implications) is the one who's "starting" a culture war. Everything downstream of the initial "push for a big change that's wildly outside the norm" is merely reactionary politics.


Example from the right... when they pushed for corporations to be recognized as people, that was a big cultural shift that had/has political implications. When the left (rightfully) harshly reacted to that, it wouldn't be fair to accuse them of "starting it", would it?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I thought the complaint was that someone happened to use terms like

"birthing persons" and "mensurating people" instead of just saying "women"

Seems like we're jumping around a bit to try and find anything to point to the idea that mainstream Democratic policies have become radicalized.

Quick question, how do you define "radical"?

Here's how webster's defines it:

a.: very different from the usual or traditional : b. : favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions


Which political entity is it that's pushing for things that are very different from the usual or traditional? and/or favors extreme changes to the existing views and institutions?

Is the person who says "I'd prefer if we did things the way they were done in 2014" or "hey, maybe let's wait until someone's old enough so that you don't have to threaten them with removal of video game privileges to get them to eat vegetables before we start letting them make major decisions" radical?


You may not agree with some of the "norms" and "traditions" in our society, and that's fine...there are some traditions that I'd be fine with scrapping...none the less, the people seeking to implement extreme changes to those in a relatively short amount of time are the ones being "radical" by the true definition.

Radicalism and extreme change go hand-in-hand. If Republicans are the ones being "radical", then those talking points about "republicans being too set in their ways" must no longer be applicable. There's no such thing as a "radical status quo" or "radically wanting things to change a slower pace" is there?

 

[Bradskii]

With regards to language, it's not just the example you provided, it actually goes much further.

Take this list from Stanford for example...part of their proposed initiative for "removing triggering words from the workplace":

https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguage.pdf

We weren't talking about general terms that some, like Stanford, suggest might be more applicable. As you very well know. So thanks, you can work up some righteous indignation about what they listed, but we won't be discussing whether 'retard' or 'Congressman' should be common parlance or not. We'll carry on discussing pronouns such as 'she' and 'her' and some people's intransigence in using them.

And to say that nobody is asking anyone else to chip in for the bills, that one's simply not true.

Medicare covers it, and there are people pushing for "Medicare for all"

Gee, you have this habit of taking a minor aside and turning it into a political argument to...what end? So I glibly say 'You aren't expected to pay for Mary's medical bills' and that becomes 'So...you're against medicare, eh?'

How about you address the main points of my posts and quit trying to score cheap political points.

 

[SimplyMe]

Well, I'd argue that big change in the last 3-5 years is that this started being discussed in the context of people who were under 18, and when the sports & locker room debates started happening.

And it's not fair to suggest that "Republicans made it a political issue".

Whichever side that's demanding public funding for something and insisting that something get special protection is the side that's making something a political issue.

The moment someone says "I think this is a healthcare issue, and I think the government should provide healthcare", they forfeit the right to accuse the other side of "making it political"

People on the left accusing the right of making transgender debates "a political issue" are engaging in the same kind of disingenuous gaslighting as people on the right who accuse people on the left of "making school shootings political".

Furthermore, I'd say that whichever side is demanding the biggest shift from the norm (that has political implications) is the one who's "starting" a culture war. Everything downstream of the initial "push for a big change that's wildly outside the norm" is merely reactionary politics.


Example from the right... when they pushed for corporations to be recognized as people, that was a big cultural shift that had/has political implications. When the left (rightfully) harshly reacted to that, it wouldn't be fair to accuse them of "starting it", would it?

If you go that way, it was the courts that initially made it a political issue, with the courts finding that a transsexual child could use the bathroom that they identified with in 2013. You then had North Carolina pass its bathroom bill in 2016 and the DoE and DoJ adding protections for transsexual students.

As a general rule, I don't see Democrats advocating the issue, aside from some interest groups. What I largely see is Republicans pushing the idea of morality, something along the lines of to keep "those perverts" away from kids, while not having any interest in what science can tell us. Perhaps you'll see it differently, but the Democrats seem largely to be pushing for the civil rights of individuals, including the transgendered, as some Republicans (in particular states) are pushing to remove those civil rights. It seems that "trans" seems to be a major part of Republicans campaigning and politics.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

We weren't talking about general terms that some, like Stanford, suggest might be more applicable. As you very well know. So thanks, you can work up some righteous indignation about what they listed, but we won't be discussing whether 'retard' or 'Congressman' should be common parlance or not. We'll carry on discussing pronouns such as 'she' and 'her' and some people's intransigence in using them.

So to recap, you said that my claim about trying to control and redefine language was off base...

I provide a document from one of the most highly regarded educational institutions in the country trying to push for that very thing, and you dismiss it by seizing on one of the examples in it that you think makes it easier to "dunk on".

Out of curiosity, why did you use the example of "retard" in your rebuttal out of the 100 and some odd examples in the doc?


Did you not think that referencing the ones like "you shouldn't say double blind study because that's ableist" or "software developers shouldn't say the word 'user' to refer to the consumers of their application because it's insensitive to people dealing with substance abuse" would make a particularly strong case for your position?

Gee, you have this habit of taking a minor aside and turning it into a political argument to...what end? So I glibly say 'You aren't expected to pay for Mary's medical bills' and that becomes 'So...you're against medicare, eh?'

How about you address the main points of my posts and quit trying to score cheap political points.

How is that a "minor aside"? You're the one who brought up the "nobody is asking you to pay for it" talking point. I provided a reasonable rebuttal that shows that people are expecting other to pay for it. If you don't want someone talk about something, don't post about it.


It's not hard to dissect this
Is affirmation care health care?
Do you want taxpayer funded universal healthcare?

If the answer to both of those questions is 'yes', then there's no sidestepping that one.


With regards to what you're referring to as "your main point" (I assume it's this bit)
I don't care. I will expect anyone who is working with Mary to show respect and some basic decency.

Does basic decency mean using their preferred pronouns?

That's something I do anyway...but we should note that the rules changed again. We're not allowed to call them "preferred pronouns" anymore because that implies that it's a choice, and for people who identify as non-binary and/or gender fluid, the expectation is that people should have to regularly check in with them to see what their pronouns are that day.


And if decency is relegated to "what makes people comfortable", then what's the tie breaker?

Mary, a transgender woman with a penis, doesn't feel comfortable changing in the male changing facility. Susan, a cisgender woman doesn't feel comfortable changing in the same room as someone with a penis. Honest question, how do we reconcile that one in a constructive way? (And by constructive, I mean something other than "well, Susan just needs to get over it!")

 

[Bradskii]

So to recap, you said that my claim about trying to control and redefine language was off base...

Yes, because I was specifically talking about pronouns and peoples' intransigence in using them. I'm not the slightest bit interested in following you down a lexicon rabbit hole. Please address the points I raised.

How is that a "minor aside"? You're the one who brought up the "nobody is asking you to pay for it" talking point. I provided a reasonable rebuttal that shows that people are expecting other to pay for it. If you don't want someone talk about something, don't post about it.

Neither am I interested in taking a detour into the pros and conns of medicare based on an offhand remark. I'm not even going to explain what I meant because it was so obvious. Again, it would be better to simply address the main point I was making and quit the deflections.

 

[Bradskii]

With regards to what you're referring to as "your main point" (I assume it's this bit)
I don't care. I will expect anyone who is working with Mary to show respect and some basic decency.

Does basic decency mean using their preferred pronouns?

That's something I do anyway...but we should note that the rules changed again. We're not allowed to call them "preferred pronouns" anymore because that implies that it's a choice...

You can call them what you like. As long as you show some respect and common courtesy and hold others to the same then there's no argument. Although you seem determined to generate one.

 

[Pommer]

Well, I'd argue that big change in the last 3-5 years is that this started being discussed in the context of people who were under 18, and when the sports & locker room debates started happening.

And it's not fair to suggest that "Republicans made it a political issue".

Whichever side that's demanding public funding for something and insisting that something get special protection is the side that's making something a political issue.

The moment someone says "I think this is a healthcare issue, and I think the government should provide healthcare", they forfeit the right to accuse the other side of "making it political"

People on the left accusing the right of making transgender debates "a political issue" are engaging in the same kind of disingenuous gaslighting as people on the right who accuse people on the left of "making school shootings political".

Furthermore, I'd say that whichever side is demanding the biggest shift from the norm (that has political implications) is the one who's "starting" a culture war. Everything downstream of the initial "push for a big change that's wildly outside the norm" is merely reactionary politics.


Example from the right... when they pushed for corporations to be recognized as people, that was a big cultural shift that had/has political implications. When the left (rightfully) harshly reacted to that, it wouldn't be fair to accuse them of "starting it", would it?

The nature of medicine is that when a “condition” is identified, in general, the earlier we can get the “treatmen” to begin, the better.

The reason it “got political” was because the treatments were beginning to affect minors, (to varying degrees), and any conservative worth his salt know that “what about the children?” Is right up there with “states’ rights!”, in the conservative-litany.

This is “normal”.

 

[KCfromNC]

Here's how webster's defines it:

a.: very different from the usual or traditional : b. : favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions


Which political entity is it that's pushing for things that are very different from the usual or traditional? and/or favors extreme changes to the existing views and institutions?

The GOP seems to be big on repealing existing case law, pushing for new big government intervention into parent's health care choices and overreaching 1st amendment violations to prevent other people from seeing stuff they find icky.

Is the person who says "I'd prefer if we did things the way they were done in 2014" or "hey, maybe let's wait until someone's old enough so that you don't have to threaten them with removal of video game privileges to get them to eat vegetables before we start letting them make major decisions" radical?

Seems pretty radical to propose invalidating thousands of legal marriages simply due to a personal preference. Are you really saying we should radically change our legal system to work on the whims of what makes random people feel uncomfortable rather than follow the constitution?

I also can't help but notice that I still don't have an answer to what mainstream democratic proposals are such a problem here. Any time I mention actual policies (and how the reactionary stuff seems to in fact be coming from the the GOP), seems like we get diverted away into vague appeals to how much better things were way back when or depends on what the definition of is is kinda rhetoric.

 

[KCfromNC]

“Everything is politics”≠”everything has equal value in politics”

Oh, of course. Politics is how groups of people negotiate to live together. But in the sense we tend to see it used here, politics is things like the GOP identity and culture war kinda stuff - using the basest instincts of people against them to manufacture fear and outrage. We see it in this very thread, a hard to identify set of things that make Democrats bad, and when asked what those things are, nothing really substantive comes up.

But it is effective on a certain group of people who never get past the fear and outrage state. In others, it seems to require a lot of mental gymnastics to avoid just admitting that it's all a case of being uncomfortable with change - instead of just admitting that, trying to rationalize and blame Democrats for forcing them to feel that way or whatever the excuse of the day is.

 

[Pommer]

Oh, of course. Politics is how groups of people negotiate to live together. But in the sense we tend to see it used here, politics is things like the GOP identity and culture war kinda stuff - using the basest instincts of people against them to manufacture fear and outrage. We see it in this very thread, a hard to identify set of things that make Democrats bad, and when asked what those things are, nothing really substantive comes up.

But it is effective on a certain group of people who never get past the fear and outrage state. In others, it seems to require a lot of mental gymnastics to avoid just admitting that it's all a case of being uncomfortable with change - instead of just admitting that, trying to rationalize and blame Democrats for forcing them to feel that way or whatever the excuse of the day is.

Which to most extents is fine and yes, “normal”.
We’ve always had this tussle-over “the issues”; okay the “issues” were different but this is the late-boomers’ time and the dawn of GenXer’s so we’re more onto social things than economic or religious themes, but the tussles are much the same…why is there this “existential woe” with this time? Is the rhetoric so bad?
I don’t think so, except we’ve never wrangled for such a long, unremitting time until DJT.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Seems pretty radical to propose invalidating thousands of legal marriages simply due to a personal preference. Are you really saying we should radically change our legal system to work on the whims of what makes random people feel uncomfortable rather than follow the constitution?

Who's saying anything about invalidating legal marriages?

I also can't help but notice that I still don't have an answer to what mainstream democratic proposals are such a problem here. Any time I mention actual policies (and how the reactionary stuff seems to in fact be coming from the the GOP), seems like we get diverted away into vague appeals to how much better things were way back when or depends on what the definition of is is kinda rhetoric.

I've already listed them earlier with examples and links.

Wanting to push for taxpayer funded elective abortions with no limits and the repealing of the Hyde Amendment are a radical shift away from the "safe legal and rare" sentiment of a few years back. (those are listed on the DNCs own website)

Per the white house press release, pushing for affirming care for minors (and giving certain state employees to go over the parents' heads in that process) represent a radical shift from where things were a few years ago.

Numerous links of quotes from Democratic legislators advocating for big changes to how we fund the institution of law enforcement

Wanting to change how we handle healthcare, despite being a positive radical shift, is still a radical shift from the status quo none the less.

The halls of academia pushing for speech codes and "things you shouldn't say anymore" (when a decade or two ago, that used to be one of the few places where free speech, no matter how controversial, was protected) represents a pretty big shift.



Apart from the conservative push to overturn Roe v. Wade, are there any other high profile example of radical changes the GOP has been pushing for? It's always been my understanding that the main critique of the GOP is that they want to keep things the same and are an impediment to the changes the Democratic party wants.

The only other one I can think of is when they push to have corporations recognized as people.