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!
yay, @contrapangloss! <3
@Gaebolga – well put… even though I have trouble accepting that “concerning” is apparently an adjective now. 🙂
Has anyone noticed this shift? I’ve heard things like “This is concerning” on major newscasts. Cue me telling the screen: “Noooo! Don’t say that! If you really want a gerund adjective, use ‘worrying’ instead!”
You can tell I’m
concerningconcerned about important things!Re formatting quotes: You can also select the text you want to block-quote (once it’s pasted in the comment box) and just click the “quote” button. It automatically adds both the opening and closing html tags.
Anyone having trouble getting all their tabs to agree with one another about what the most recent comment is?
I’ve got three, one on this page, one on the next article, and one on the one after that. The latter two show a comment by Valentin at 8:50, slightly over an hour ago. This page does not. Refreshing all three doesn’t change this. After I refresh all three, they should all agree — unless a comment went through in between one refresh and the next, in which case that comment would appear in the “recent comments” box on the last page refreshed and not on the others. But that isn’t happening here. Even after one of the three tabs showed a Valentin 8:50 comment refreshing this one did not. Even shift+refreshing this one did not.
Of course, if I can’t get these tabs all showing a consistent picture of the site’s state, then I can’t catch up new comments correctly, or at least be sure of having done so (i.e. without having missed anything) …
What the heck is going on here? I’ve encountered similar inconsistencies from time to time when open on multiple articles/threads at this site for the past few weeks. Is there some trick needed to get a fully up-to-date reload of a page at this site? Right now the evidence says I have a view of this particular thread that is at least an hour out of date, after having hit reload less than five minutes ago …
Curiouser and curiouser. Posting the above comment made the hour-old Valentin comment appear on this thread’s “recent comments” box … as the site’s most recent comment. My own comment did not appear there. In fact the version of this page I got served wasn’t even internally consistent, because the comment itself was right there at the bottom of it but not also listed in the recent comments! Of course it’s not physically possible for it to both exist and not exist at the same time — or, at least, not physically possible to observe such a superposition of states. Something is definitely broken with the “recent comments” box on this thread, as it seems to be consistently showing comments 2nd through 9th most recent while the corresponding box on at least some other pages on this site correctly shows the 1st through 8th.
The strange thing is that this should not be possible even in the presence of a computer bug somewhere. The “recent comments” box should be populated by the first eight results of a DB query that is run when the server is asked for a thread page and executes the PHP script to generate such pages, so whatever that DB query returns at time t is what every “recent comments” box on every page should show if refreshed at time t. It should not be possible for a particular page’s box to behave differently from the ones on other pages! It’s like having two windows out onto the same street side by side in the wall of your house and seeing different weather in them, the sun an hour higher in the sky in one than in the other, and different cars moving on the road. If a bug made the results of the dynamic query be incorrect it should have that effect on every page that’s (re)loaded while the bug is in effect!
This is a real headscratcher … and a real inconvenience to anyone trying to catch up on unread comments. Please look into it.
@Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
The only timey-wimey comment shenanigans I’ve experienced are that my comments only show up after the edit timer’s run out, though perhaps I did once see on such hidden comment pop up in the “Recent Comments” box on another page, while not showing up on the page itself. Knowing next to nothing about web server deployment, I can only speculate that it’s either the effect of the anti-spam system or some DDOS-protection measure that caches the site content.
And while we’re on the subject of wishlists and comment formatting, can we get a feature that allows us to not only quote comments, but automatically insert a link to the comment we quoted? Depending on my mood, I sometimes manually copy and paste the URL and provide a hyperlink, but it would be easier to trace comments if this was done automatically.
If my comment doesn’t show i just go back to the main home page and then open the article again. then the comments show in order.
I suspect that some funky shit happens when on pages that are direct links to recent comments (as you get redirected to after you hit the ‘post comment’ button). Your comment is often invisible and the recent comments box doesn’t update properly. Being on the page that is only linked to the article or only linked to the comments (not a specific comment) seems to avoid this problem, at least for me.
@Surplus
Serious question, here. What do you hope to accomplish when asking these kinds of questions? Because what typically happens is someone offers some helpful response, you get upset because the response isn’t what you wanted, and then an argument breaks out. So what is it you’re looking for? Because we’d like to help you but we regret it everytime we try.
Thank you so much for the formatting lesson! I’m getting on the train and this time I’m thrilled with the answers i got. For the first part of that long ago thread i was really volatile and upset when I started commenting,and that had nothing to do with this, I had been upset all day and rereading, I do think I was excessive because hindsight is 20/20 and i should apologize for being so extra.
But I still feel a few comments were unnecessarily harsh. The ones that served no purpose other than to tell me I was wrong and implied at least to me that I was being stupid or willfully ignorant and argumentative when like I always have in the past I was just confused and out of my depth. It hurt my feelings that some few people at least seemed to not truly believe me and thought I was trying to argue. I will go back and paraphrase the couple of things that hurt my feelings in the comment i write when I get home.
Ok, I think I can find articles about or at least references to the pro life concept I’ve been talking about that predated the current people who call themselves pro life but are blatantly lying when I get home but I don’t know how to link things here. So I’d appreciate it if someone could explain that also if anyone has time and doesn’t mind.
I truly miss commenting here(people who have been here for a long time and remember when I started commenting, remember how incredibly ignorant I was about current events, feminism, politics, etc. And so many people educated and informed me about so much, and it was awesome??so i truly do value the community here)but whether it’s true or I’m just being insecure and I’m wrong, I definitely felt unwanted by the end of that thread and I’m too insecure to stay somewhere when I feel a reasonable amount of people don’t want me there.
Anyway let me get on the train. If I don’t get back tonight cause I’m dying to play spades plus(anyone who likes spades should definitely check out spades plus! I’m like obsessed with it now)everyone have a great day
P.S. Is it easier to read now? I tried to do what people said would help
All you have to do to link is copy the url and paste it in your comment.
Is “kill all the men” still an option?
No?
Fair enough. I’m actually thrilled that someone called me a “pinkazoid.”
It may be the best word ever. Now I can die.
I’m also not really getting why you’re asking to be educated about issues surrounding reproductive rights if you’re as you stated willing to die on the #notallprolifers hill. It’s a waste of time to go search for information and then write summaries here for you if you’re not open to changing your mind. This is why people are not receptive to requests for education during a debate or argument. It’s a well worn tactic designed to wear people down. Now that you’ve said you are not open to changing your mind, I know I feel pretty disinclined to trying to politely change it or educate you. Others are more patient than me, but none of us have unlimited patience.
Which brings me back to the question I keep asking. Why stir up this debate again? If you want to feel welcome here, but aren’t willing to budge on your position that you can be pro-life in a non-harmful way (and incidentally, I don’t buy your mother’s excuse for being dishonest with you about what pregnancy entails) then why bring up the topic?
Wwth first to start off agreeably I also don’t accept my mom’s reasoning I think it was deceitful and I kind of resent her for it. But I also recognize she’s my mother and she did have good intentions. So it’s hard for me to actually be angry all though I do resent the fact that she knew I was completely ignorant about a large facet of something that’s a very important to women and thought that was just cool.
But the reason I bring it up is because in real life I’ve been talking to a number of friends and they’ve been talking to friends and it seems there is a group of people who have completely progressive views because they were juvenile delinquents like me parties, drugs, promiscuity, Etc. They’re completely open minded and agree with my motto if you’re a grown-ass adult and you’re not hurting anyone do whatever the hell you please it’s your life. I honestly think that’s the bedrock of progressiveness.
But people who are easily hurt and oversensitive have been feeling attacked in a lot of places lately. This is according to me, friends I’ve spoken to, plus there are even think pieces about it.
I don’t understand why when people feel that someone is incorrect and don’t want to help why they would say anything at all. I really value this place because I’ve learned so much here but after that incident I’m honestly scared to ask questions now. I’m not trying to make anyone feel guilty or wrong I’m just saying how I feel. Maybe I’m being unreasonable I don’t think I am but it is surely possible. But I felt a very few comments were just harsh, unhelpful and unnecessary.
What is the point of just telling me how wrong I am with nothing else added? I mean sure I guess if it makes you happy you have the right to do so but I’m not trying to tone police anyone I just don’t see how that helps anybody. If there’s a group of people who are scared to ask questions now because when they’re ignorant people are kind of harsh with them, is that a good thing? Because I don’t think it is. Maybe it’s just because I’m insecure but I truly felt unwanted here after that exchange. I thought people would be happier if I didn’t comment anymore.
But if I don’t ask questions I can’t learn. And like I said and I think one or two other people said the same thing Google is a beautiful thing but sometimes it’s bad for specifics. I’m not even sure what I’m asking for, it just seems like there are people who are a bit too vehement sometimes not just here all over the internet in liberal spaces and it’s starting to make psychologically frail people nervous about asking questions cuz they’re scared someone might yell at them. Maybe I’m being immature and this is trivial but it seems to me that that’s not a great thing.
I discuss racial issues more than anything else online and in real life. But if I can’t be friendly about it I don’t say anything at all. But most of the time I can be and it can be frustrating and irritating but when people are truly in good faith and then the light bulb goes off and they finally understand it’s so satisfying.
I’m sorry, I’m not just stoned like always, I’m also drunk and I’m absolutely rambling. But my point is if you don’t want to educate someone obviously you don’t have to. But why chime in just to say someone is wrong? Because what’s the point? I think I can do that thing that someone kind explained in an earlier comment and I will pull a quote as an example of what I am talking about if I can manage it. It seemed straightforward the person explained it well so I will try after this comment.
But I just don’t get why of all things this one we are just supposed to accept that the liars are the only ones allowed to use the term pro-life. If that makes me naive or immature or silly I know I can be all of those things.
But at College my mom and a few friends started a group and use the term pro-life before it was a thing. I just don’t get why when they are truly pro-life by dictionary definition and the other people are lying that the group who is not lying and came up with it first is in the wrong that part makes no sense to me and no one has explained it in such a way that I can understand. I’m sorry if it seems like I’m herping or splitting hairs. But this is really confusing the f*** out of me because I thought we were all on the same page about words have meanings and definitions matter. So why are we humoring the liars in this specific case? Is it honestly solely because they are the vocal majority even though they’re lying trash? I love the other term someone used “forced birthers”that’s exactly what they are anti-abortion forced birthers they’re not pro life. So why when my mom went to college and associated that term with her group along with a few other things why is she the one who should be vilified? I think the liars who took the phrase but are using it completely in bad faith should be vilified. Maybe this is very naive of me but it’s honestly how I feel. I’m confused as to why we should just be like oh well they’re full of shit and not pro-life at all but we should call them that. Anyway I’m going to bed I don’t have any hostility toward anyone here I hope everyone had lovely holidays and a lovely New Year and we’ll have a lovely 2019! I mean God it can’t be worth in 2018 right? Crossing my fingers LOL. Okay sleepy time for me good night
What do you believe her intentions were in deliberately keeping you ignorant of the realities of a condition that could very realistically affect you at some point in your life? Because protection fails sometimes even when used correctly and even more often when used the way your average human does. So it’s not impossible that even if you’re as careful as can be, you could get pregnant. And if you were to become pregnant and not know anything about what tgat actually means, how can you make an informed decision about what to do about it? What could the good intentions be in preventing you from knowing the gravity of the situation?
So did you not read our responses, or…?
Edit: One last thing: sometimes we respond to tell people they’re wrong not for that person’s benefit, but for the benefit of the lurkers. Because it’s not a good or positive thing to let incorrect statements just hang there. And why aren’t we always nice about it? Because sometimes we don’t have the extra energy required to protect the wrong person’s feelings.
@KatieKitten420
Thank you for the paragraph breaks; they do make it easier to read.
Upon re-reading the original thread, I actually did find a comment that perfectly answers your question about why we ‘allow’ the anti-abortion movement to continue to use the term ‘pro-life’:
In other words, we don’t ‘allow’ them to use it; they don’t need our permission to use it, and even if we told them not to use the term ‘pro-life’, they’d continue to use it anyway.
@Katie
The paragraph beaks make your post much more readable, thank you.
Hey, what year exactly were your pro-life friends in college, hmm? The 70s is an entire decade. Was it perhaps around 1973?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_anti-abortion_movement
Here is another very helpful site on the history of the pro-life life movement:
https://tah.oah.org/november-2016/abolishing-abortion-the-history-of-the-pro-life-movement-in-america/
Google shows me absolutely no results for pro-life groups focused on, say, preventing war and implementing gun control and abolishing the death penalty prior to 1973. It’s always been against abortion, first and foremost. Perhaps you have some other sources, though? I’d be interested to see them.
They aren’t the vocal majority. They are the literal majority. The overwhelming majority.
An overwhelming majority of a group that is specifically focused on stripping the rights of people with uteruses, and is very, very close to achieving their goal in the US. Can you see why people might be upset when you keep defending the name of that group?
Also, to continue my Nazi analogy, did you know that Nazi didn’t originally mean “racist, hateful, genocidal, anti-Semitic fascist”?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
Poor, lower class folks had the term “Nazi” applied to them long before the term was stolen by liars who wanted to commit genocide! Why on earth would we assume that someone calling themselves a Nazi is a dangerous bigot? Is it just because the vocal majority of Nazis are dangerous bigots who are lying about being lower class? That’s no reason to assume that everyone calling themselves a Nazi is bad!
Thank you for the paragraph breaks, that is much easier to read.
I told you. It’s for the lurkers. It’s also because this is a progressive space, and no one will put up with defending pro-lifers. It’s bullshit.
This is an IMPORTANT ISSUE. It has HUGE CONSEQUENCES. You’ve said you are involved with racial justice, what if someone (a regular commenter) came in to your space and said something terrible? Perhaps something about the IQ differences between the ‘races’, and how it’s just science, where’s the harm?
People would understandably be livid. And would tell them. Some would feel good being able to say “No, fuck that” out loud, confidently. It might be a rejection of things they were taught that they knew were wrong, or that they have realised after careful consideration were wrong.
I’m not saying your mom is evil. We all have problematic parts of ourselves. We’re a mix of good and bad. An onion, if you will. Layers.
Okay, I’m tapping out here.
*you* *need* *to* *prove* *this*.
I have already demonstrated that your mom was very religious, and also very catholic. Catholics were always on the ‘abortion is evil and you’ll go to hell you slutty slut just have the baby’ train.
Find some good history that proves that ‘pro-life’ was about the anti death penalty, and not about abortion. You have presented this extraordinary claim, *you* have to back it up.
I don’t want to downplay your frailty, but…. Have you considered how these questions being asked, again and again, affect other ‘psychologically frail’ people?
“I don’t see how believing personally that abortion is a sin can affect anything. You should be free to believe what you want!”
*someone reading this, having needed an abortion and being raised in a situation that frames it as such, and having therefore to hide it from their family*: “I can’t even process this right now.”
You want us to be careful for you, fine. Everyone wants that. But I will come out strongly to defend those who can’t participate in a super triggering conversation.
Abortion isn’t a sin. Needing one isn’t a sin. Believing it personally DOES have a consequence…
And I can prove that.
Katie, look in the mirror. Look at how upset you were in the other thread. Look at how you brought it up, *again*, later.
Your mother’s *personal* convictions have done this. Because she believes it, and you respect her. She raised you with this in the background. It has shaped your world view enough that you believe that pro-life, as a term, has been stolen (which you will need to prove, I’m not doing that work.)
Ah, I remembered what I wanted to say before! You mentioned in the other thread that your mother and her friends have raised a very large amount of money for charity. Think about it. Can you guarantee that none of that money had ‘this can’t go to help abortion groups’ strings attached?
The US has cut off aid to anyone who even mentions family planning. And that has had huge impacts.
If you only fund abstinence only programs, what is the effect?
In short: You presented this as a plus. It is, it’s good that money is being raised for charity. But there’s also a sneaky negative – the money was potentially used to further the “””pro-life”””/forced birther agenda.
I’m pretty sure your mother was always a pro-lifer, as we understand the term. Otherwise, she would have found it too toxic to use, and gone on to something else.
You also say “Pro-life according to the dictionary”, nd I want to know which dictionary. Because these are the definitions I found.
Can’t copy and paste this definition on my tablet, but the Cambridge dictionary.
The collins dictionary.
Merriam-Webster.
OH SHOOT, and you wanted proof? I just accidentally found it!
Same page:
There you go, 1971, and that is a respected source. It does, and has always meant, forced birth.
…. Ah, dammit, I went and googled anyway.
Here’s an article.
And before you read it and go !!! See I was right, I will direct you to look at the use of the word ‘And’, which means ‘both of these things are true’.
So your mom (depending on if her group was before roe v wade or afte rit) could have been both anti-abortion and anti-war. But she was still anyti-abortion, because *that is what the term was*.
In short: you can claim that this isn’t the dictionary definition all you want, but it is. This is what pro-life means. And if your mom believes personally that abortions are sinful, she is pro-life, full stop.
Sorry. It’s just true.
Katie,
We already explained why the term pro life is problematic. You dismissed the responses, doubled down and came back months later to declare that it’s a hill you’re willing to die on. What more are we supposed to do here? It seems like you don’t want to learn, you just your statements to be accepted uncritically.
And I push back on any anti-abortion rhetoric because it is a vitally important issue. If you truly want to be educated on the topic, spend some reading on the Guttmacher Institute website.
Also, if your mom was willing to lie about pregnancy, what makes you think she’s telling the truth when she says her college pro life club had nothing to do with being anti abortion? You need actual evidence if you hope to convince us that there’s a non misogynist pro life movement out there.
@KatieKitten420
And here’s another comment, from the same thread, suggesting, as @Cat Mara did in this thread, what your mom’s church group could call themselves rather than ‘pro-life’:
@KatieKitten420
I figured I’d put this part in a separate comment, because it’s a new point.
In the responses immediately after you made your first comment in that thread, when people were telling you how they’d never admire a person who claims to be ‘pro-life’, understand that they are not talking about your mom’s church group, because they don’t know your mom’s church group from Adam and Eve.
If they really are as consistent in their moral stand as you say, it’s not your mom’s church group’s fault that people feel so angry when they hear the words ‘pro-life’.
It is just an unfortunate turn of events that you mom’s church group shares its name with a very hateful, very influential movement.
So, when all the other commenters were saying how bad, or hypocritical, or otherwise willfully ignorant ‘pro-lifers’ are, don’t take it as an insult against your mom’s church group.
Most importantly, don’t ever take it as an insult against yourself.
It’s not personal.
It’s not your fault.
A clarification to @Ariblester’s point above, for those who haven’t read the original thread… Katie was asking us if we could still find her mother’s definition of pro-life (socially pro-choice but personally forced birth) admirable.
The answer to that is ‘no’.
From here.
@Rhuu
Ah. I’m not even sure how I managed to misread that as saying nearly the opposite. My sincere apologies.
In that case, I entirely withdraw my statement about it not being specifically about her mom’s church group.
She still shouldn’t take it personally that people she admires for certain qualities have some views that are objectionable to others. As you said, people have layers, with laudable and problematic qualities mixed in.
So, to @KatieKitten420:
It’s still not your fault.
To clarify, the part (from the same comment that @Rhuu is referencing) that got me turned around was this, and not the paragraph that Rhuu quoted:
Yes.
When the majority of a language group uses a term in a specific way, then that is the common definition of that term. It doesn’t matter if you like it, or if it’s an inherently false or misleading use of the words involved (like, say, “The Defense of Marriage Act” or “The Death Tax”).
Language is a democratic institution, and the majority defines the terms.
Okay thank you everyone for being so patient with me. Especially Gaebolga, who was able to express the concept in a way my literal to a fault self can comprehend is factual even though I don’t agree it should be. For some reason it really bothers me intensely that those horrific immoral forced birthers are able to claim they are pro-life. Pro meaning for or to support life.
Where I was referring to dictionary definition I was referring to the breakdown the definition of pro and the definition of life. Not the definition of the colloquialism Society has accepted for some completely unknown reason to me given the fact that they are lying blatantly.
I was born in 1984 so I obviously wasn’t there when it started I just can’t comprehend how people were just like oh okay y’all are pro-life instead of saying no you guys are lying assholes. Like one of the reasons I have poor social skills in a lot of ways is it’s hard for me to be subtle or notice or comprehend subtlety and some forms of nuance also. This seems very black and white to me when it obviously didn’t at the time to many people and even to this day.
They are lying and they are not pro-life. Therefore i feel everyone should have just been like f*** you and ignored them cuz they are a group of liars adopting a phrase that sounds good to try to cover up the fact that they’re just disgusting forced birthers.
But essentially what you’re trying to tell me is we’re just past the post now. It doesn’t really matter because they’ve won, it’s their phrase now. I know this is probably incredibly naive and immature but that just seems so unfair when one group of people are for life in every way not just when it’s a fetus and sometimes not even then if it is a fetus of color.
To be clear my mother and her group in college they are not by any stretch of the imagination forced birthers. They believe abortion is not a lovely thing but would much rather prevent it from ever being an issue with birth control then making it illegal neither my mom Margaret Rosina Gary those are the four people who raised me somewhat so I know them well. Making abortion completely illegal causes more pain death and suffering if you look at actual statistics it’s undeniable. Therefore my mom and the friends of hers I know well I think that is a very stupid thing politically they are pro-choice and they supported which I said previously.
But what I’m getting from what people are saying here is at this point it doesn’t matter. The group of liars has just poisoned the well so badly that phrase is full of connotations and assumptions now. It doesn’t matter what the words Pro and life actually technically mean in the dictionary. It matters what Society is going to hear when you use the term.
I just find it infuriating that I know for a fact my mother and Margaret thought of that phrase in college I’m not sure if I can find proof of this on the internet there was no internet then. And they were a few college students but yes someone brought up another name for the type of people my mom and her friends are that I guess is better nowadays, because as a few people explained the well is truly poisoned.
That’s the part that just confuses me too much I don’t understand why everyone just accepted that. Why didn’t everyone constantly from the beginning be like no you’re a a huge group blatant liars! Fucking stop it. I guess that’s easy to say now. All right let me get on the train I am going to try to find reference is cuz I have found them before like mostly jokingly referring to for example on that pretentious rag Splinter there was a joke about the nine real actual pro-life people and the seven real actual Libertarians and I’ve seen a few other things like that so obviously some people know what I’m referring to I’ll just have to find it and someone told me how to link so I will try to do so everyone have a lovely night either way. Good night all I’m getting on the train to go home