I think Republicans are afraid of abortion because deep down they know that the only reason they’re here is because abortion wasn’t easily available. Gotta keep the garbage coming.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
Even if you don’t win, pushing back against hatred is always the right thing to do.
Depends: if something did not get any attention - than push back is contra-productive, since it might just create more attention. If something is already getting than pushing back might be helpful in the bigger picture.
There is almost no way to convince people with radical opinions in a written discussion. So the push back is not really useful to challenge the opinion of op but of people less radical or neutral who are also reading the comment. But if the comment did not get any traction, there might be a downside in engaging by getting more attention to the comment. And you don’t know which side of the argument people in the end will chose - so I would just leave it alone. If I’m not in mood for some flaming.
There is almost no way to convince people with radical opinions in a written discussion.
That is an assumption, and not a fact.
Also, pushing back sends a signal to others in the same Society that there are others that believe the same way as they do, and invites them to push back as well. A society self signals to the members inside of it as a method of forming the meta opinions of that Society.
Hatred should always be pushed back against, no matter how effective the pushback ends up being, and regardless of the aggravation/cost of doing so.
Sure, I would love to hear arguments against it. I personalty would prefer if it wasn’t that way.
Also, pushing back sends a signal to others in the same Society that there are others that believe the same way as they do, and invites them to push back as well.
That is a fair point.
Hatred should always be pushed back against, no matter how effective the pushback ends up being, and regardless of the aggravation/cost of doing so.
Yeah, like I don’t agree with this at all. Not difficult to for me to think of situations where just let it be is the best and ignore it is the best answer.
the only reason they’re here is because abortion wasn’t easily available
Meh. I think a lot more of it is Republicans seeing their children failing to have a sprawling brood of children to perpetuate the Family Line and falling back on this being some kind of conspiracy against white people.
These are people who get exposed to Reality TV families with twelve kids and yearn for the kind of extended families that they shamed their own kids out of when they freaked out about teen pregnancy during the 90s/00s.
You’re saying kids born because abortion wasn’t available are pieces of garbage. What the fuck. think about what you said.
Since I was down voted into oblivion. I’ll reconsider your statement.
Deep down Republicans believe that the only reason they’re here is that they weren’t aborted.
So I guess that’s similar to conservatives thinking that the only way people can act morally is because they read it in a thousand year old book.
I guess the logic checks out but all I could think about with a gut check was that kids who’s parents wanted to abort them but couldn’t probably ended up in a hostile environment.
Actually I didn’t, which is why I asked that question. Your writing is unclear (which is why multiple people seem to be concerned about it), and you’re assuming the reader will understand your comment in specific context.
Why would I assume republicans (who are anti abortion) get enough abortions to influence how many of them there are? Can we even assume that having access to abortion influences population size when sterilization exists, and is something people get when they’ve had enough children? These are hypothetical questions, I don’t expect you to answer them. I’m just pointing out that without being clear, you can’t assume folks will read your post under the context you feel is obvious.
I think Republicans are afraid of abortion because deep down they know that the only reason they’re here is because abortion wasn’t easily available. Gotta keep the garbage coming.
This kind of rhetoric doesn’t help resolve anything.
I wasn’t trying to solve anything. You can’t fix stupid.
That much is obvious. ‘Opinion masturbating’ in a public square is a thing, apparently.
This kind of rhetoric doesn’t help resolve anything.
It helps identify individuals who don’t care about making the world a better place, via resolving issues.
Removed by mod
Removed, rule 3:
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
Talking on the Internets won’t solve much no matter what you say.
Societies self-monitor the people in them.
Even if you don’t win, pushing back against hatred is always the right thing to do.
Depends: if something did not get any attention - than push back is contra-productive, since it might just create more attention. If something is already getting than pushing back might be helpful in the bigger picture.
It’s not a matter of getting attention or not, it’s a matter of challenging the commenter and their opinion on the subject.
The assumption is that it will get attention since it’s on/in a public forum.
There is almost no way to convince people with radical opinions in a written discussion. So the push back is not really useful to challenge the opinion of op but of people less radical or neutral who are also reading the comment. But if the comment did not get any traction, there might be a downside in engaging by getting more attention to the comment. And you don’t know which side of the argument people in the end will chose - so I would just leave it alone. If I’m not in mood for some flaming.
That is an assumption, and not a fact.
Also, pushing back sends a signal to others in the same Society that there are others that believe the same way as they do, and invites them to push back as well. A society self signals to the members inside of it as a method of forming the meta opinions of that Society.
Hatred should always be pushed back against, no matter how effective the pushback ends up being, and regardless of the aggravation/cost of doing so.
deleted by creator
Sure, I would love to hear arguments against it. I personalty would prefer if it wasn’t that way.
That is a fair point.
Yeah, like I don’t agree with this at all. Not difficult to for me to think of situations where just let it be is the best and ignore it is the best answer.
I wouldn’t say it’s against a rule, but kinda messed up to imply someone was basically garbage since birth.
Seems like a razor’s edge that they’re walking on.
Meh. I think a lot more of it is Republicans seeing their children failing to have a sprawling brood of children to perpetuate the Family Line and falling back on this being some kind of conspiracy against white people.
These are people who get exposed to Reality TV families with twelve kids and yearn for the kind of extended families that they shamed their own kids out of when they freaked out about teen pregnancy during the 90s/00s.
I mean, most of the upper level Republicans come from wealthy families that would’ve had access to abortion regardless.
You’re saying kids born because abortion wasn’t available are pieces of garbage. What the fuck. think about what you said.
Since I was down voted into oblivion. I’ll reconsider your statement.
Deep down Republicans believe that the only reason they’re here is that they weren’t aborted.
So I guess that’s similar to conservatives thinking that the only way people can act morally is because they read it in a thousand year old book.
I guess the logic checks out but all I could think about with a gut check was that kids who’s parents wanted to abort them but couldn’t probably ended up in a hostile environment.
I feel bad that so many of you have the reading comprehension of a stump. Poor guy.
Care to elaborate on how abortion restrictions “keeps the garbage coming”?
In the context of awful Republicans creating more children and raising then to be awful Republicans… You knew that though.
Apologies for the late reply.
Actually I didn’t, which is why I asked that question. Your writing is unclear (which is why multiple people seem to be concerned about it), and you’re assuming the reader will understand your comment in specific context.
Why would I assume republicans (who are anti abortion) get enough abortions to influence how many of them there are? Can we even assume that having access to abortion influences population size when sterilization exists, and is something people get when they’ve had enough children? These are hypothetical questions, I don’t expect you to answer them. I’m just pointing out that without being clear, you can’t assume folks will read your post under the context you feel is obvious.
Yeah it’s not my writing…
deleted by creator
deleted by creator