- cross-posted to:
- brainworms@lemm.ee
- cross-posted to:
- brainworms@lemm.ee
You must log in or register to comment.
At first, I didn’t see why this was even newsworthy. “We need to extinguish the Left” just sounds like typical right-wing motivational crap to me. Then I actually read the article:
“The only thing that’s good enough is completely and totally destroying the political left in this country. Destroy it,” Sabatini said.
"I’m talking about defunding government agencies, defunding bureaucrats, defunding government schools and going 100 percent private school like Florida’s making gestures at right now.”
So, he’s talking about gutting the country. This isn’t just some moron shooting his mouth off at the bar, either. That’s not great.
I’m libertarian and I (unfortunately) have to vote rep. Every election day and tbh, I say both parties need to go! They’re both shitholes full of shit people who just want money, just by provoking different audiences, and before you say “b-but mah lesser of to evils!” SHUT THE FUCK UP AND USE YOUR BRAIN! They don’t give a FUCK about what YOU WANT! only what they want! What they want is total power. “The left” wants “The right” gone and vice versa! Then we end up having a one party system and you know what that means coughs Hitler, Stalin coughs and again, there is no “lesser of two evils” just some ideas you agree with, and some ya don’t. As my father says, “We all bleed red, why can’t we all just get along?”
No one is holding a gun to your head making you vote R. You can vote D. You just choose not to. What an incredibly idiotic comment.
How? Please explain how me not choosing to vote for a few policies I don’t agree with is idiotic? OK from you’re perspective you. Can’t see how someone could have a differing option but that’s fine. I do dem on a few issues but only because they share my views but for the majority, its the reps. that hold the most of em. I would vote for the libertarian Party but it would be useless. Still I wanna hear why you think I’m an idiot? is it because you think I’m agians human rights? Or immigration, or abortion? Let’s talk!
You first preemptively chastise others for “mah lesser evil”. Then openly admit you don’t vote for your “party” because they wouldn’t win, and instead vote for the one of two likely winners based on “close enough”. That’s literally choosing the lesser of two evils.
I mean only one of the two main parties is pretty clearly against abortion and it definitely isn’t the dems. So like, yeah. I’d think by voting repliblican you’re probably against abortion. What opinions exactly do you share with republicans?
I mean only one of the two main parties is pretty clearly against abortion and it definitely isn’t the dems.
This is incorrect but an understandable interpretation because dems suck at messaging.
Dems really need to pivot to the mother’s health rather than choice. For starters, abortions are serious medical procedures and shouldn’t be taken lightly. As a result, part of the more health focused platform would be to reduce abortions as well as all the other issues facing pregnant women. They should avoid letting the argument be framed as if they “want” abortions. No one wants abortions. Dems just don’t want to restrict anyone with regards to their personal healthcare decisions.
Edit: some people need to accept that dems suck at messaging or work on their reading comprehension or both.
Oh neat, this is a divisive rhetorical device. Don’t actually constructively argue for a policy you prefer, just attack how people talk about it. It’s fascinating to notice bad faith republican techniques you’ve only read about.
@meco03211 is pretty squarely presenting the difference between “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” branding. No harm in pointing out that some debates aren’t worth wasting energy on until they’re properly framed.
You misunderstood.
abortions are serious medical procedures
This is a myth. In the first trimester an abortion is the medical equivalent of repairing a dent in a car with a suction cup. It takes anywhere from 30 seconds to two minutes and the side effects are the same as a miscarriage (e.g. cramping and bleeding).
Science VS made an excellent podcast about the science behind abortion and talked extensively about the various procedures, fetal states of development, etc: https://gimletmedia.com/shows/science-vs/n8h7aag
You can just read the transcript if you don’t want to listen to it. Search for this string: “
Lisa explained the process to reporter Heather Rogers”abortions are serious medical procedures
This is a myth.
Perhaps that statement was a bit broad. There are serious abortion procedures depending on many factors even if not all abortions would be called serious. The point I was making is that even the least serious options are not some desired thing. So continuing as “pro abortion” opens dems up to the idiots on the right that think normal people are relying on them as birth control. Just pivot to mother’s health as the framing and then you can point to the statistics of how contraceptive access and sex ed improve all aspects of the mother’s health including fewer abortions. Then point to red states and their higher abortion rates.
Uh people who get raped want abortions.
No one wants abortions for /funsies/, you mean.I feel like people see abortions as bitlrth control. You have unsafe sex and get pregnant? Well I can just have an abortions and not deal with the consequences! I also feel like abusive relationship will take a massive spike as guys no longer feel like they have to be careful, and can just fuck her as many times as he likes all the while thinking “I’m not gonna get in trouble for this, I’m not gonna have to worry about a kid cuz I can make her abort it!” Ik that sounds retarded but I kid you not when abortions are made legal (where I live anyway) we will see a huge wave of young kids coming to get them as a form of birth control. Now, if the mothers life is in jepordy, as well as the babies then why not abort it and save the mothers life? Well there is a thing called c section. What about rape? Silently putting the kid up for adoption is an option, no one has know and there are couples waiting to take kids in. Well what about women’s rights!? Well, what if I told you I don’t care. I only care about the babies right to life, if he/she wants to off themselves later on (which they shouldn’t and should seek help) then that’s their choice. We have systems in place to help these children after birth.
Lemme tell you a story: I was born at 24 weeks, a micro preemy. During my mothers pregnancy, her doctor told them that getting an abortion might be a good choice as I might not make it once I was delivered. They gave me a few weeks to live, a month at best and told me that I would prolly come out not breathing. Despite those horrible odds, my parents talked about it and decided to bring into this world, even if it was for a short while. When I was born however, I defied the expectations of the doctors, and came out screaming! Fist balled up like I was gonna punch em in the face! Of course it didnt get easier, my dad told me I was to small I fit into the palm of his had and he told that at that moment, he was so grateful he didnt kill me. They rushed me to the nicu, and hooked me up to all these monitors and tubes. I spent months in there and as a result I now have a paralyzed vocal cord and due to all the drugs, terrible tooth enamel. When they brought me home I had to stay on oxygen for a few weeks but I made it, I survived and now here I am, 24 years later healthy as I can be! Sure it hasn’t been easy, and I’ve lost my hearing and have had to wear glasses and my mouth is one big filling lol. But I did it and I’m grateful to be alive! THAT! my friends, is truly why I’m anti abortion. To other kids like me a chance, to give them a shot at life! Because only through pain and suffering do we grow stronger as people. So don’t give up on that tiny life, give it a shot and who knows? It might be the best thing you ever did!
Thank you.
I will delete this account in a few cuz apparently this isn’t the instance for me, I think I might make my own!
It was moreso meant for people prior to getting pregnant. No one is sitting there trying to get pregnant just to have an abortion. No one is longing for that. But yes in other words no one is doing it for fun.
Edit: Jesus some of you salty fucks are worse than the usuals on reddit. Clearly not reading and comprehending the comment. Just downvotes.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
— German pastor Martin Niemöller
I mean, is this really news to anyone?
Not for me, the left has been pretty open to murder since it’s inception, even now the “eat the rich” phrases permeate the internet as a whole. It’s only fair both sides get the chance to think themselves the moral high ground even in fact neither have it
I think there’s something critical that’s being missed here.
Pray tell, when was the last time the Democratic chair called for the extinguishment of the right? What about any party leadership? I don’t worry too much about extremist senators or legislators, because in that regard, yes, there’s always stupid idiots there. The difference here is that you basically have the whole ass republican party has eradication of the left as a party platform.
Clearly, I talk about the left in general. It’s a very popular slogan advocating for murder and it had been for a long time. And all things being equal, if they can advocate GLOBALLY for murder, why can’t these guys locally? Same shit different shitter
You know, I hope you’ll forgive me for thinking it’s a wholly different matter for people on the internet talk shit about eating the rich than for the chair of one of our two functional national political parties to casually discuss plotting political violence against the other party. Realistically, I think folks on the internet would cool it with some honestly pretty modest reforms; I think it’s fair to say that much of the “eat the rich” sentiment is rooted in resentment for the state of things, but can the same be said of this guy? What reforms would bring him off of advocating for the removal of people who like different policies? We’re talking about an authoritarian here, someone who wants the left out because they stand between him and his party just doing whatever the hell they want.
Wherever it is rooted, or however you consider it, the expression, it’s still advocating for murder. No one has immunity in that case and if advocating for murder makes you authoritarian, then basically all leftists claiming to murder the rich are authoritarians.
And if they can, why can’t others? It’s not only a privilege you have just because you have less or more money than others.
Otherwise cut the pretend virtue signaling and start getting your purge on
I’m going to stick with my assessment that this is kind of missing the problem here. I’m not saying that advocating for murder is okay. I’m saying it’s a lot less okay that the chair of one of our two real political parties, who represents the sentiments of a group of people who can realistically be charged with controlling the government, is in favor systematic violence against a little over half of America because he doesn’t like their political views. To say that it’s the same as the eat the rich calls on the internet because they both advocate for murder is mistaken at best because of the probable actions that could be taken because of those narratives.
I think the realistic worst case scenario of eat the rich narratives is that one and exactly one billionaire catches a pipe bomb, and I honestly think that’s a big stretch because most of the eat the rich narratives revolves around agitating for reforms. The point here is that it might spur an individual or a small group of individuals to personal violence. It’s not a good thing, mind, but let’s compare. I think the realistic worst case scenario of the GOP advocating for political violence against the left is that the government gets weaponize against the left. The government in this case meaning the NSA mass surveillance program(s), the justice system complete with militarized police, the military, the corporations that contract and cooperate with the government, and more. In the US, small violent groups like the KKK have done awful things. The US government has, many times, done things that were orders of magnitude worse.
The consequences of this kind of thinking in government are spectacularly bad, and aren’t excused just because there’s bad actors on the internet.
