OP didn't ask "right side of history" but specifically safeguarding, so answer to your Q is no, they haven't.
-
-
Replying to @dreckweb @roarin_waterz and
White women in the South who organized in favor of segregation absolutely did see it as a matter of "child safeguarding"
1 reply 3 retweets 63 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @dreckweb and
Lol at the idea that there's any kind of opposition between "reactionary" and "safeguarding" Every reactionary movement in the history of the world has positioned itself as a "child safeguarding" movement, it's the most potent possible rallying cry Read the 14 Words
4 replies 8 retweets 74 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @roarin_waterz and
talking about reality rather than perception/"positioning", though realise the identity brigade would struggle with that.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dreckweb @roarin_waterz and
So you're going with "As long as you remove all the times moms were wrong, moms are always right"
2 replies 1 retweet 53 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @dreckweb and
The funny thing is, like, you're removing *most of them* when you do that Prohibition, segregation, the Satanic Panic, Section 28/the Briggs Initiative, One Million Moms How much is actually left? What's the big famous "safeguarding" campaign that WASN'T reactionary
3 replies 1 retweet 52 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @dreckweb and
You know, I'd never actually thought about it in quite those terms before.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @potaterator @dreckweb and
Even the "mom campaign" with the best press, MADD, has been shitty in a ton of ways Raising the universal drinking age to 21 was bad, pushing three-strikes and zero-tolerance laws was bad, opposing cannabis legalization was bad, backing Prop 22 was bad
1 reply 2 retweets 47 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @mmofcan and
I think you are mistaking "initiatives govt and men created and gave in response to women's protests" vs "things women actually requested" Three Strikes for example? Was meant to apply only for violent murderers, rapists who had high rates of recidivism. NEVER just felonies
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @AureliaCotta @mmofcan and
I am specifically talking about Mothers Against Drunk Driving choosing to back each of these bad things because of their bias as a socially conservative single-issue org ("Anything that gets drunk drivers off the streets!")
1 reply 2 retweets 29 likes
The Prop 22 one is specifically gratuitous No one expected MADD to weigh in on this, they had no need to, but they took Uber and Lyft's money to say that rideshare drivers working for a pittance is okay because the important thing is preventing DUIs So fuck them
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @mmofcan and
And again, specifically only in the US, and nowhere else. Nowhere else even in the US.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.