By David Futrelle
It isn’t just the white supremacists who are mad about Bird Box. No, it turns out that at least one black supremacist has some big problems with the Netflix post-apocalyptic horror hit as well. And his issues with the film are even weirder than theirs.
Some white supremacists are taking aim at Bird Box, as I noted in a recent post, because they think the film — whose most heroic figures are a white women and a black man — is some sort of SJW propaganda designed to denigrate the straight white male.
But the black conspiracy theorist behind the virulently anti-white and anti-Semitic Race Rules blog is angry at the film because he doesn’t think the handsome black hero of the film would really be into “preggo over-the-hill skank Sandra Bullock” who “looks like a damn tr***y.”
Mr. Race Rules starts off by noting that he doesn’t like “race-mixing” in movies because there really is no such thing in the real world. Strap yourself in here, folks, because this is where things start to get really weird. “[T]he so-called races are actually different species,” he writes.
Blacks are the only humans and everyone else are all animal humanoid hybrids or what I call manimals.
And even though Sandra Bullock’s self-sacrificing boyfriend in the film, played by Trevante Rhodes, presumably doesn’t believe that white people are literal “manimals,” Mr. Race Rules still doesn’t believe that “someone as good looking as that brother” would want anything to do with
a pregnant, pale, curveless, pig-nose beast like Sandra Bullock in real life … Black men that are attractive rarely go after skanks unless they have been hurt by black women, they are drunk or high or just goddamn brainwashed to fuck manimal bitches for some reason like porn.
Love that he manages to blame black women for what he sees as Rhodes’ poor romantic choice. Weird how dudes who rail against the alleged evils of white women — regardless of their own race or political views — almost always seem to hate black women at least as much, if not more.
Mr. Race Rules is also annoyed that Rhodes’ character turns out to be what today’s white supremacists would call a cuck — raising kids fathered by men of a different race. Sorry, species.
To make matters worse the dumb ass nigga was going to be raising two white kids with a white woman as a black man. What the fuck is that? Reverse reparations?!?!? I’ll never take care of some white bastard kid. She didn’t even want them herself just like most white females who always pretend to love their kids. Ain’t buyin’ it. White females are full of shit…..literally and figuratively.
Despite the much-discussed diversity of the Bird Box cast of main characters, there are no black women in roles more prominent than “Woman in Entryway.” Mr. Race Rules thinks he knows why.
“Did anyone notice this one last very important thing?!?!?” he asks.
NO BLACK WOMEN!!!!!!! That was no fucking accident. The elite worship the black woman. It is their doorway to the future through the black womb since pinkazoids are all dying out….much of it from their own compulsive self-extermination.
Wat.
They never want to disrespect the black womb-man too much on the big screen because they know where we all come from. There’s no problem slaughtering and incarcerating record numbers of black and Latino males but they have to protect the black womb to ensure their genetic future for now. Most black females still don’t get it. Once the manimals get what they need from you….YOU’RE DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!
Just FYI, black “females!”
But Mr. Race Rules’ theories about white manimals and black womb-men aren’t even the weirdest part of his, er, review of Bird Box. No, that honor has to go to his discussion of “falcon Heru the Hero.” Who, you ask? Let’s let him, er, explain:
The movie had a few interpretations as far as I could see with my 3rd eye partially open. One is the blind fold was blinding the pineal gland showing how everyone is really unconscious these days from all the poison and brainwashing. Second the bird box (B+B=2+2=22+Master Builder) showed how the falcon Heru the Hero is actually being held in a box or this Matrix and keeping his 3rd eye (really 1st eye) from awakening by the parasitic elite and their minions using light-bending technology to prevent the light code frequencies from returning through our ancestors.
Okey dokey then.
For a little context: Heru is another name for the falcon-headed Egyptian god Horus, and is apparently a major part of the esoteric conspiracy theories that Mr. Race Rules and a number of other similar theorists espouse. But I haven’t looked into the details of this yet, because my poor brain has already been taxed enough for one day, and I suspect that now yours has been as well.
We Hunted the Mammoth is independent and ad-free, and relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
Ok, I read through that thread to jog my memory. There wasn’t any hostility towards Katie. There was a lot of us going out of our way to clearly and strongly, but not rudely express our views on the subject. People got frustrated towards the end of the thread when she wouldn’t stop digging but still ultimately gave her kind and supportive words.
I’m not even sure why she brought it up all these months later. Particularly without any consequence. Was it just to shit stir? I don’t really get it.
@Kupo, Ariblester
Thank you.
@TB Tabby:
It’s certainly confusing that the same word is used for both, but I believe the point that most people who make that argument are going for (and who are speaking in good faith) is that although people can be hateful on an individual level, their hatred doesn’t actually contribute to nation-wide or worldwide power structures. We won’t ever see an inverse Donald Trump who wants to kick out every white person in america.
When a group of people rally for black supremacy, they’re powerless against white people (misogyny, transphobia, etc notwithstanding).
When a group of people rally for white supremacy, it has the power to alter the views, and even laws, of the entire nation, and it has the power to alter how millions of people think and act. The rise of visibility in white supremacy has been directly linked to statistical increases of hate crimes. That simply doesn’t happen on a significant scale with black supremacy. Society punches down, not up.
Is it bad that a black guy hates all white people purely for being white? Sure, but you know how we fix this rather insignificant issue? By addressing the much bigger and far more deadly issue of institutional racism.
My main issue with Sandra Bullock is that she married a neo-nazi Jesse James but I guess no one wants to talk about that and they prefer to be racist about her character loving a black man and mysoyinistc about her age. She already split from Jesse James but I don’t believe you can marry a neo Nazi and not know there is something a little bit wrong with him! And before she split Jesse James was planning to be the adopted father for her adopted son. Imagine a neo Nazi raising a black child ? I am glad she got away from him before that happened…
Wwth: I’m a little confused because I’ve heard many times on this site it matters if people feel hurt by what you said it’s really messed up to tell them how they should feel so if I feel a few people were rude to me I’m just wrong that’s what you’re saying? I’m not trying to be bitching truly it just seems like you’re saying I felt hurt and attacked at the time for no reason at all I was just imagining it? I disagree and I regret it also different people have different points of view what is upsetting and hurtful and harsh. My settings are tuned very high I am very insecure and over-sensitive and I know that but people here also know that so why be harsh? How will that help in any way? If you can’t give me information without being harsh or cutting just don’t because the information isn’t worth being hurt for it. I’m not talking about you personally to be very clear. Or Catalpa because there was a little animosity it seemed to me for a bit but then you both were very helpful especially Catalpa and Rhuu with some incredibly helpful links that taught me about how pregnancy actually happened and it’s not like you just glow for 9 months and maybe occasionally get a little tummy sickness. As you can see my knowledge of pregnancy comes from rom-coms. Which is true and sad at the same time that really is where I got the most information about pregnancy until y’all gave me those links. Okay I want to be very clear that I was wrong about almost everything I initially stated because my mother misled me. I know a lot more about the facts of pregnancy then I did previously my Mom feels like she had good reason she says I was so adamant about never getting pregnant she didn’t want to depress me because I’m easily depressed. I don’t know she meant well. I think people were, maybe hostile is a touch strong, but harsh definitely isn’t. I just reread the thread. I will admit that I am an over-sensitive person so given that may be hostile is strong. But given we’ve all been so emphatically saying words have meaning I don’t understand why the current group of people who call themselves pro-life just get to be like okay it’s ours when they’re not actually pro-life, they’re just anti-abortion. A lot of those people are pro-death penalty, pro war, and many other things that are not pro-life by dictionary definition. And this was in 1970, the people I am referring to started using the term in college, abortion was not the issue it is now. The group of people I was referring to called themselves pro-life before the current group existed and I just don’t understand why the group that is lying and stole the term because it sounds good gets to be the only people allowed to use it. Until someone can explain why this is to me I will die on this hill and I’m sorry if it offends people I just don’t understand why in this specific case words don’t mean things. Every other case they do but in this case people can just call themselves pro-life when they’re not and we just need to accept that apparently that’s what everyone is telling me. Why can’t I call them liars and say they are not pro-life because they are not. I don’t care what they call themselves. Everyone constantly says words have definitions. So they do. I believe the literal dictionary says pro-life mean something that the vocal majority of people who call themselves pro-life do not actually support. Pro means to support you are for something. If you are for life how can you also be for the death penalty? That’s the epitome of contradiction. I don’t care if you’re anti-abortion, if you are for the death penalty by dictionary definition you are not pro-life. What I still do not understand is why it is okay they just call their movement pro-life and we accept it. Why don’t we call them out as the liars they are? That is how I feel and I don’t get why that is wrong. I’m just asking for people to use the real definitions of words and not the one society has colloquially made up. If I said I have purple skin it would be factually untrue and people would tell me so. I feel in feminist spaces the word pro-life provokes a knee-jerk response. I kept saying I do not support the anti abortion group that claims to be pro life I support my mom and a few friends who are politically pro choice in that they believe making abortion illegal or even harder to acquire is not pro-life because in the long run it hurts and even kills women. They call themselves pro-life because they are for life in every way. What about that view is abhorrent? If it’s only the fact that they are using a term that they used years prior to the current group using the term incorrectly I truly think peoples priorities are skewed. It feels like everyones telling me the only group that has the right to use the term pro-life is the awful lying group that isn’t actually for life just anti-abortion and I still don’t understand why. I was completely and totally dead wrong about everything else though. I’m perfectly willing to admit that but it’s not just me who feels hurt and attacked when they get confused and don’t shall we say tread the party line like I’m doing right here with the whole pro-life concept. Apparently only assholes can have it I just don’t get why everyone here is just okay with that. Why do they get to co-op the term and no one else can use it when they’re the ones who are blatantly lying? I’ve spoken to a number of people who feels this way not about this site, its all over the progressive sphere. If you say something that’s too far away from a certain group of talking points some people will jump on you and in some cases it gets really out of hand. The case I’m referring to is not one of them but that’s because the people here tend to be particularly nice and neither of the people I thought were harsh and unkind unnecessarily have made a response to this. I think I was very clear at the time I was very happy with most people but I can still think two people I think they know who they are were more hostile than they needed to be given they know how long I’ve been here they know I’m asking in good faith and they know I’m mentally fragile therefore if what I’m saying upset you when you know good and damn well it wasn’t my intent how about you just ignore it instead of being harsh and curt and cutting? Anyway this was another f****** essay LOL and I’m on the train headed home. I hope everyone has a lovely night or day.
There are people, particularly among more left-leaning Catholic and evangelical Christians, who recognise that being opposed to abortion while simultaneously mongering for war and supporting capital punishment out the other side of one’s mouth like most so-called “pro-life” people is deeply hypocritical. Their preferred term is “having a consistent life ethic“.
Katie,
Multiple people already went over this. For several pages. If you want to restart this argument, even though it’s well covered territory, I can’t stop you. If you’d just dropped the subject and started commenting here normally again, I don’t think anyone would’ve had an issue with that.
But if you want to bring it up again and you’re willing to die on this hill – your words, not mine – then you need to own it. You don’t get to complain about how the rest of us are harsh or hostile to you for disagreeing with you and having strong opinions. And with Brett Kavanaugh on the bench now, reproductive rights are more threatened than they were before so you’re not going to find anyone less inclined to passionately defend them than they were before.
As someone, I think it was Rhuu pointed out in the other thread, you are not the only one who is sensitive and to me it feels very manipulative to use your own emotional state to try and get us to acquiesce on a topic that stirs up emotions in so many of us.
Lots and lots of awful groups choose titles that sound positive if you assume that the dictionary definition of the word is all there is to it. For example:
“Nazi is just short for ‘national socialist’. I know some Nazis who truly believe that implementing a socialist nation is the best way to run a nation. I mean, everyone likes socialism, right? They’re totally faithful to the dictionary definition of the word, I don’t understand why everyone is so harsh to me when I say that I know some really nice Nazis! I know that the vast majority of Nazis support literal genocide, but I don’t think that’s a reason why we can’t use the word to describe totally nice people!”
The pro-life movement has always, always been about stopping abortion. Yes, even back in the 70s. If you wanted to be against war and death and whatnot, the phrase for that was anti-war.
“Pro lifers” have been using violence against abortion providers since 1977.
“At least eleven murders occurred in the United States since 1990, as well as 41 bombings and 173 arsons at clinics since 1977.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
Or pacifist, humanist, egalitarian, human rights activist, progressive, liberal…all kinds of words that can be used before we use “pro life”.
From what little I’ve seen of black supremacists of Race Rules ilk is that they seem to be cut from the same cloth as white supremacists, in that as shown here they prove they can be just as misogynistic, homophobic (I’ve read the work of one who thinks homosexuality is some demon trying to make black men not date black women) and transphobic, which makes sense. Most white supremacists are just sad little men looking for some reason that explains why they arn’t on top, so I assume black supremacists fit the same role of middle to upper middle class men who are unhappy the world isnt bending to them and then decide to blame it on women, gay people, and trans people. Also pretty much every bigot you find regardless of color or sexuality will hate on trans people, even trans bigots will hate on trans people (Mostly Trans mediclasts who hate on non-conforming trans people and non-binary and genderqueer folk or people like Blaire White) Which I also assume is because trans people, especilly non-conforming and nonbinary people, are at the bottom rung of the social ladder
Everyone saying notably wait in the 1970s you gave me a link for 1977 so let me get this straight. I make a group for whatever and call it something that dictionary describes it. Like it doesn’t matter what it is. My name for it is the exact dictionary definition and then at least half a decade later a group of people decide to use the name I chose for their group when they are actually lying. Why is that just okay no one has explained that yet they just say I should accept it. I should just except that it’s true even though people just keep saying it as a given. No one has said why even back in the other thread I just read it for a second time and no one explicitly explains this they just expect me to get it. Well I don’t get it explain it to me like I’m a five-year-old. If I’m right and a group of mean people decide to take the name I came up with but they’re lying in the name doesn’t actually apply to them why do they get to steal it from me if I came up with it first whether it’s pro-life or anything I just don’t understand I’m not trying to be argumentative or confrontational or play Devil’s Advocate I truly don’t get why that’s okay. Blake it seems the literal opposite what everyone’s always saying words have meaning and that’s important it just doesn’t apply in this one case for some reason? Because what our society widely accepts and views as the pro-life group is not pro-life by any stretch of the imagination they are solely anti-abortion! Does anyone actually disagree with that? So if they are not pro-life and if you Google you will be able to find people talking about older pro-life groups before anti-abortion was even a thing. Why do they just get told they’re wrong now? I don’t understand that. Again I I’m always willing to accept when I truly think I’m wrong I was wrong about pregnancy because my mom knew I was very adamant about not having any kids. Therefore she meant well by just letting me believe it was all what they put in rom-coms and cutesy sitcoms. But even though she meant well she just felt what was the point in upsetting me because she knows I’m over emotional but I think that was an incorrect move on her part and I resent her somewhat for it because without that information I have said some inappropriate things in the past when I look back. But if everyone is going to be so vehement that this is just true beyond a shadow of a doubt. Someone has to explain it better than that’s just the case that’s just how it is. Why can Liars cake the name of a group of people who aren’t Liars and thought of the name much earlier and this is just fine? That is the part I don’t get I’m not standing up for pro-life people by the normal colloquialism of pro-life like we all understand that right? I read the thread I repeat over and over again my mother is strongly politically pro-choice she’s personally uncomfortable with having an abortion herself. I don’t understand and now I’m just repeating myself so let me go to bed but I truly don’t get why in this specific case the people who are blatantly lying are the ones who get to adopt this phrase. I’m always hearing that that is unacceptable especially these days but here everyone is saying we should just let the anti-abortion people call themselves pro-life even though it’s completely factually untrue and people who truly believe in Saving Lives are f***** up for calling themselves Pro I just don’t get it and no one actually has explained it they just expect me to accept it go back and reread if you don’t believe me. If someone disagrees then link to the previous comment to hear where they explicitly explain why we are not calling people who are lying liars and why the people who actually are pro-life meaning in every possible way should be vilified. No, no one has explained that yet. Some people even acted like I was being silly to even ask the question in a number of cases. So again sorry for the length. I smoke too much weed it makes me ramble. But I truly do not get it. If that makes me dumb fine but I don’t understand I’m not trying to annoy people but I do not get this and Google is not helping not with something this specific and precise. If someone can truly explain why and not just say this is how it is awesome! I will be happy to be wrong just like I was wrong about the other 80% of what I said but this I don’t see it they are using the definition of words properly the other people are not that’s objectively true why is that okay here and nowhere else plus everything else I said above. Also After I reread the thread I’m not sure if I said it was only two people who I feel said things that were actually inappropriate to me I just don’t see what they were trying to accomplish they were harsh and utterly unhelpful. Everything else I can see it although there are more comments that hurt my feelings but I’ll admit things just got kind of intense and looking back I can be like okay that was not unreasonable to say even though at the time it stung a bit. But there were two people where no I don’t think what they said was reasonable particularly because it wasn’t attached to anything helpful at all they were just attacking what I said. That is what I was specifically referring to in my first comment it doesn’t happen here very often at all but on a lot of other liberal sites especially feminist sites I see it more often Jezebel for example I can’t even go there anymore. Anyway like I think I said I have no animosity toward almost anybody here so many people here have helped me with so many things when I very first started to get interested in activism and politics and world events and stuff. I truly appreciate and I’m grateful for that but I want people to be aware that there are some people who are trying to engage in good faith( I’m not talking about here anymore. This is referring to people I’ve spoken to in multiple places that feel like they’re being occasionally being attacked for their ignorance)So again, not necessarily here, cuz one of the reasons I asked all the questions of this community was because it is a particularly nice one and a particular intelligent one. I feel like maybe it’s helpful to mention though because I’m sure people here do read a bunch of other liberal sites, so I’m just putting it out there. Wow it’s almost 9 a.m., I’m going to bed LOL. I hope everyone had a wonderful holiday season and happy New Year! I mean shit, it can’t be worse than 2018 can it? I’m kind of terrified to find out in truth.
Oh just in case this wasn’t clear I’m perfectly pleased to know I’m wrong and now I’ve learned a lot about what pregnancy actually entails. At least 80% of the s*** I initially said was completely misguided and incorrect. I’m perfectly content to admit that. I’m only arguing on this point cuz no one truly explained why I’m wrong they just said I was like it should be obvious and everyone else agreed no one explicitly explained what I just asked them to explain in the last insanely long comment. It is not there. I read all six pages twice. So if someone can explain to me why the liars should just be able to keep the name and the people who came up with it first before abortion was even an issue should be vilified for using it, when it describes what they are doing but not what the liars are doing, because being anti-abortion by no means equates to being pro-life, please explain it to me. I would love to get why everyone is acting like I’m so very wrong because I truly don’t remember the last time I was this confused LOL.
I’d really need to see some evidence that there was ever a pro life movement that wasn’t anti abortion before the pro life movement as we know it occurred.
Even of there was, the well has been poisoned. But if you’re going to insist that the term has been hijacked, you really, really need to back it up. Because asking us to accept that there’s a good pro life movement that we should admire is otherwise completely fucking absurd.
And seriously? What is even the point of stirring this back up? What are you Are you trying to accomplish? Are you trying to be the new mrex or something? Because that didn’t work out so well for her.
I’m only addressing this specific statement, Katie, because I really don’t want to wade into an abortion debate; imho, they’re basically pointless because each side is extremely emotionally invested so neither side will give an inch.
That said, I believe you may be missing the point of language.
Language is one of the few truly democratic institutions we have, in the sense that if a majority of people agree that “blue” means the color of the sky on a cloudless day, then that’s the definition of that word. If a majority of people decided that “blue” meant a piece of old chewing gum stuck to the bottom of a table, then that would be the new definition of that word, and no amount of complaining about what “blue” used to mean would matter.
As a practical point, when the definition of a word changes, people are usually aware of the older definition for a while, so it’s not as abrupt as I’m making it seem, but the underlying dynamic is the same. The core purpose of language is to allow us to transmit information, and that can only happen with a shared understanding of the meaning of words, which is why it doesn’t matter what an individual thinks a particular word means, it only matters what the general consensus is.
Words and phrases change meanings over time; that’s the nature of language and is a necessary response to an ever-changing social context. At the end of the day, all definitions are ones that “society has colloquially made up.” That’s not a bug – hell, that’s not even a feature: it is foundational to the entire concept of language.
If I decided that “hatred” means the state of being bored, that doesn’t actually change the word’s meaning, and people are going to completely misunderstand me if I say “I’m feeling so much hatred right now, I wish something would happen.” And rightly so.
The fact of the matter is, if you use an obscure or idiosyncratic definition of a word or phrase – especially one that has such a generally understood definition and brings up a lot of intense emotions – you don’t have solid grounds to get upset when people use the common definition rather than your obscure one.
The purpose of language is communication, and whether you like the common definition of a term or not is irrelevant to that purpose.
Catalpa literally just did. We can’t stop them from naming themselves that. We disagree with them on what “pro-life” means, so amongst ourselves we often refuse to call them that. Instead we call them “forced-birth” or “anti-abortion” (or a few others). But they still call themselves “pro-life” and we can’t stop them from doing that. So when you use the term, know that everyone who hears it will think of the group who wants to take away bodily autonomy from women. Just like you can’t just walk around with a manji pin on your lapel without someone assuming you’re a Nazi, you can’t just reclaim this name from the hateful people who coopted it.
KatieKat, if you want to convince everyone that you’re asking questions in good faith, you need to listen to the answers you’re getting.
@KatieKitten420 – Please use paragraph breaks. You write a lot, and i get lost. Paragraph breaks will make it easier for us to respond.
You could also try re-reading what you typed before hitting ‘post’, since you repeat yourself a lot.
Now, as to if if your mom and group can call themselves pro-life, this has already been explained.
For instance, a woman coined the term ‘incel’, in the beginning. She meant it as something different than it means now. Could she still use the term? Sure. But everyone would hear ‘incel’ and not think ‘lonely person’, but rather elliot rogers and the toronto van killer.
Could she take the term back? That would be reclaiming it, like people try to do all the time. Take, for example, ‘queer’. It was a fine word, then it was a slur, and now it is a self identifier for many people because of reclamation. Long, organised, and hard fought reclamation
As another example, Pepe the frog was just a stoner dude in a comic. He is now a symbol of the alt-right. His creator is waging a legal war to stop them from using him. It is going to be an incredibly difficult fight, and not one for the faint hearted. It will also probably cost $$$.
Now, the term ‘pro-life’. it is, and had always been, about abortion. People don’t want to call themselves “we want to strip bodily integrity away from half the population, as a way of fighting the gains that feminism has made towards allowing people with a uterus to be counted as a full and equal member of society, because we are heavily invested in maintaining the current power structures”. It’s not snappy, and lays bare their aims. So they choose a nice sounding name (“pro-life”) that they can say. People know what they mean (mo abortions, you slutty sluts!!!!) And they don’t have to say it.
I also re-read the previous thread. You might feel like you were attacked, but barring you linking to comments, all i can say is that you weren’t. You came in here, and posted about a literal life and death issue that many of the commenters here have thought long about. They will reply, and it will be strongly.
This is life and death. Or life in poverty. Or or or!
Asking someone to be kind is tone policing, and i won’t have it.
Also, there is value in replying to you, even if it isn’t super nice. (I personally can be nice about this, some others this issue hurts too much, and is too important) because lurkers lurk and read. Maybe they have had or need to access an abortion, and seeing it talked about frankly with no stigma or euphemisms mean that they can feel better about getting one. Maybe it helped them learn.
But also, being kind and asking for things to change (“pretty please don’t force me and my family into a life of poverty?”) DOESN’T WORK. Women are usually socialised to be sweet and non-confrontational, and being strong about an issue in itself is a victory against oppression.
As to if your mom is using the term in the original “no death penalty” meaning… you said she was a nun or a sister, who had to get permission to leave to marry your father, which makes her very religious. You also said she petitions the vatican, which makes her Catholic.
Catholics always fought abortion. Her pro-life ideals were always tangled up in it. The evangelicals came to be ‘pro-life’ after segregation became an untenable position, and they needed somethjng new to stir up hate. Before they jumped on, it was a catholic thing. Sorry, it just was.
Re: why do we let the ‘pro-life’ people use the name? We don’t. Fuck ’em. I call them ‘forced-birthers’, because that is what they are.
There isn’t any interest in reclaiming this term, but there is an effort to not call them by a cutesy happy name.
I had something else, but i forgot, and now an at work. Rrg.
I could say the same about your backlash against us for not understanding what you actually meant when you were using a term in a way it’s never been used in a mainstream sense before (and you’ll need to prove otherwise if you want to claim it was; don’t just tell us to Google it because I can find nothing to support your assertion and I shouldn’t have to do so anyway).
I’m also a sensitive person, but you’re not allowing me to respond emotionally when you lash out. It seems to be 100% reserved for you to be sensitive about this topic, even though half of the population is currently having their rights systematically stripped away by a group going by a term you’re continually defending the use of.
@KatieKitten420
The emotional hurt that you felt is valid, and no one can tell you otherwise.
However, it seems that most other commenters do not know what it is that was said that was so hurtful to you.
I think that if that question is not answered, the discussion will just continue to go in circles.
Put aside the definition of “pro-life”, put aside talk of good faith or intent, of being “wrong” or “dumb”, put all of that aside, and think on this question:
What was specifically said that was hurtful, why was it so hurtful to you? What do you mean by:
If you don’t want to name names, that’s fine. Just be specific about what exactly about those comments made you feel hurt.
Half a decade is nothing.
The National Socialist German Workers’ Party (i.e. The Nazi Party) was founded in 1920.
They didn’t start blatantly implementing the murder of Jewish people until 1938, almost two decades years later.
Just because it takes a while for the violence to percolate to the surface of a movement doesn’t mean that the intent wasn’t always there.
Also, before people in Canada start feeling like abortion isn’t an issue here…
from this CBC article. Oh, spoilers, the two candidates they are talking about are also hella transphobic.
I’m just really glad I live in a state that already has laws in the books protecting abortion as a right.
Hi KatieKitten!
I’ve not been around much, so feel free to take this all with a grain of salt. I very much only skimmed the “debacle”, so I’m going to try and only focus on stuff here. Well, with one exception.
I think I remember you saying you didn’t know how to do the ‘quoting’ thing and requesting help on that. So, before I do anything else, here’s a quick Comment Formatting 101 .
Thing One: The Quote (and other html formatting)
Depending on your interface (phone, computer, magical wifi rock), David has included some useful buttons. If they exist, they live at the top of the comments window. Pressing the button once will add a tiny little block of html to your comment. When you’re done, you can scroll back up and hit the button again! This is generally the safest method.
EXAMPLE TIME
Caution: Missing step 4 will make the entire rest of your comment live inside the quote. We call this phenomenon being eaten by the blockquote mammoth. At least we used to. Do we still do that?
There are also buttons for bold face and italics and even links! The link button is WAY easier than the manual version, so I will highly recommend the link button if you must link and want to link pretty. If you want to link ugly, just copy pasta the link straight in as is and (while not pretty) it will work.
Now, if you’re like me and are (1) too lazy for the buttons, (2) like typing out a rough draft in a word processer, or (3) tend to use an interface where hitting the buttons is just super annoying like a phone, you can also use a little bit of HTML coding.
Note for this next bit that the bracket style and the slash direction totally DOES matter. So, you’ll need to type things out pretty much as they appear.
<strong> Typing between these will result in bold font! <strong>
<em>Typing between these will result in pretty italics! lt;/em>
If I have a ton of things I’m doing, I’ll sometimes copy paste the start and end quote html tags, so I don’t have to type blockquote a bajillion+1 times.
Thing Two: The Paragraph Break
One thing I’ve noticed is that your comments tend to be single long paragraphs. While not exactly a bad thing, it does tend to have the unfortunate side effect of making longer comments a bit hard to read and good (or bad!) points are a lot easier to miss because it’s just harder for the reader to keep track of what’s going on.
If you feel like you’ve been typing a while, maybe hit the enter key/button. Blank space gives the reader’s brain a chance to chill out and process what you’ve just finished saying.
So, that’s Formatting 101. Since this has already gotten outrageously long, how about I do the reaction to your comments in a separate comment? That way if I totally broke the HTML I’ll have time to fix it.
Also, it’ll take me a bit to actually go through the two comments here… so have patience with me. Unless other folks have already helped sufficiently before you see anything from me.
If that ends up happening (because I’m a slowpoke) feel free to leave a comment telling me to ‘let it go’ already.
Also, one thing that would help me figure out what is going on would be if you could (without rehashing everything) give me one or two specific examples of what you felt was hurtful or uncalled for.
I’m not planning on going back to the other thread, and I don’t think we need to, actually. It seems like most of the problem is tone/perception/word choice and not issue driven. But, specific examples would help.
Well, the edit option disappeared for me. Errors above!
I forgot a slash at the end of the bold example, and the html got eaten on the italics…
The end tag of the bold should read:
</strong>
The end tag of the italics should read:
</em>
Having the < and > format pretty in a comment is tricksy, compared to using them in tags. Can I use that as an excuse?
@contrapangloss
It’s a perfectly valid excuse. It’s a lot of work to set up a comment explaining how formatting works. That’s why I tried to ask for the specific device because then I wouldn’t need to include extra instructions.