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!
I think Lesley isn’t arguing for a middle ground, just arguing against the terms not being descriptive/accurate enough.
Please correct that if I’m wrong, Lesley.
I’m lost with the ‘negative right’ talk… You also didn’t explain what I had asked for clarification on.
:/
“I think Lesley isn’t arguing for a middle ground, just arguing against the terms not being descriptive/accurate enough.
Please correct that if I’m wrong, Lesley.”
Yes, this. And about how people weaponize those inaccuracies.
@ Lesley
But the point is that, if there is to be a true choice, then abortion has to be a positive right.
If abortion is merely a negative right then all that means is you won’t be prosecuted for using a coathanger on yourself or ingesting poison.
That’s no option at all. For it to be a practical, rather than theoretical, choice, then people need free, unimpeded, and safe access to abortion.
And how have we weaponized the term “pro-choice”, Mx Libertarian?
I think Lesley is not arguing in good faith.
“I’m lost with the ‘negative right’ talk… You also didn’t explain what I had asked for clarification on.
:/”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/
“@ Lesley
But the point is that, if there is to be a true choice, then abortion has to be a positive right.
If abortion is merely a negative right then all that means is you won’t be prosecuted for using a coathanger on yourself or ingesting poison.
That’s no option at all. For it to be a practical, rather than theoretical, choice, then people need free, unimpeded, and safe access to abortion.”
This actually makes sense. I was missing some of what you were saying.
Administrative diversion:
When quoting, please use the quote button provided! This will make it easier to identify what text is a quote and what is your original words. You can either:
– Highlight the text and then press the “quote” button once,
– Press the button, paste the quoted text, and press it again, or
– you can be a nerd like me and just type in the html
This will help aid clear communication. Thank you!
All I ask of trolls is that they not be boring. Apparently that’s too much ask.
Yeah im so bored at this one blah nlah blah negative….liberty…. positive blah blah…. pedantics… womens freedom….
@Lesley:
1 in 3 women are affected by sexual violence. Trans and intersex people are literally murdered for daring to exist. And you’re using them as sprinkles on a debate about semantics? That’s kind of a dick move, because it implies that these are things to be debated, which they are not. They’re human beings.
@Lesley
Why shouldn’t abortion be funded by federal money, covered by insurances and being educated on in schools?
Lesley says:
No it fucking isn’t.
It encompasses more than just positive abortion access, and always has. Being “pro-choice” literally means to be pro all the alternatives, too.
There are issues that drive pregnant people to have abortions when they don’t want them, such as coercion by a partner, economic difficulties, unfair labor conditions, etc. “Pro-choice” includes helping people who want to stay pregnant and raise children do so freely both on an individual level and policy level.
There’s also a lot of work around increasing and maintaining access to contraceptives, making sure young people get accurate sex-ed and educating people about consent. Only focusing on the abortion part of pro-choice ignores what the movement is actually about—reproductive freedom of all kinds and at all levels.
Okay thank you very much I’m starting to comprehend a few things now. Also I’m very glad that I have an example I can point to now LOL. Okay we have a troll who IMO is not asking questions in good faith. No matter what I say I hope the people here can tell I truly am just asking questions because I honestly don’t understand. I honestly want to learn truly. But Leslie does not give me that impression.
I just think we should give people not just me but anyone who is ignorant about something and truly want to learn at least some slack and the benefit of the doubt. Leslie just sounds condescending and lecturing at least that’s how it comes across to me but I am over sensitive. Also Hippodameia, do you truly see this as trying to pick a fight? Because that hurts. What gives you the impression I want to fight? Because I truly want the opposite of that. I’m trying my very best to make that clear by saying how much I value the community which is very true and explaining what is confusing me precisely. What about that makes you think I want to pick a fight? I absolutely hate fight. They frighten me and make me feel sick. I mean that’s why I’ve been gone for so long because I was scared I would be the impetus for another fight.
After all that I felt like people didn’t want me here in the commenting community anymore. I have rethought that after seeing people’s reactions to me coming back. I think I thought people were angrier than they were because I’m insecure. But still the same it should be incredibly obvious that I not want to start a fight and it hurts my feelings that you would think that is my motivation for commenting.
I’m getting on the train and I’ll finish up when I get home cuz I think I’m finally starting to understand. I’m immature and naive so I think it’s really unfair but I’m starting to accept. But I hope we’re all on the same page at least in the sense of what I actually believe well what my mom believes. She does not want to force anyone to have an abortion she supports politically that women should be able to have access to abortion easily at any time for any reason. She believes we should all strive for outcomes in which all Humanity not only the highest number of people possible survive but they also get to live.
She believes and I agree, surviving and living are not the same. If I couldn’t live I’m not sure if I would want to survive. Surviving just means your body is alive and functioning. The bare minimum. Living meaning you are enjoying yourself at least part of the time also you are at least content if not happy. And there are things that bring you Joy. If you don’t have any of that you are surviving not living in my eyes.
Catalpa, I think you’re being very slightly harsh and unfair. You say 45 years. My mom was born in 51, she started college in 69. That’s when this group started. Almost a decade more than 45 years ago. it feels unfair to her and me that they just get to take the phrase. Other people have explained why for example with the poisoning the well metaphor. That truly is helping me get it. You just say because she started using a phrase first and assholes co-opted it and she didn’t stop using it because she was like why should I be forced to change my life because of assholes that means she is exactly like them or aligned with them something like that. That’s what I’m getting from you.
You’re saying she is aligning herself with forced birthers. No, they aligned themselves with her because she was calling herself pro-life more than half a decade before them, but there was no internet then so I have no links to prove it to you. Considering she went to NYU for undergrad during the fucking Vietnam War do you really think it’s a stretch people might want to create a group that is for life? I don’t know what to say if you think I’m lying just for fun I don’t know what to tell you.
Again I’m not trying to attack you but it’s upsetting to hear because my mom and some friends decided to make a group to support all things that help and support life by definition because a giant group of assholes co-opted the term she is exactly like that she is aligned with them I don’t understand that. I truly don’t.
When her literal viewpoints in almost every possible way disagree with theirs and she started a group as a freshman in college(well really Margaret started it) calling themselves pro-life over half a decade before them why is she aligned with them by definition? I literally can’t comprehend that. She despises the accepted group that calls themselves pro-life. It should be obvious she would despise that I think? She had a concept as an idealistic teenager during the Vietnam war that a group of people stole and used it for evil she might hate them more than the average person. Anyway at this point I’m ranting and my train is almost here.
Again this is not an attack on anyone. I just want to understand why when most of the time when conservatives are Republicans or right-wing people of whatever stripe are blatantly lying everyone’s like call them out call them out but in this specific case apparently that’s not the way? Again a couple people helped me with some metaphors and explanations, especially that poisoning the well one thank you Gaebolga?.
Okay I have a bunch of stuff to do for my mom like laundry and cleaning the house and things so if I can’t get back to sum up when I get home I’ll do it when I wake up around 7 p.m. Again I am truly grateful for the patience and help I’ve gotten from the great majority of the people here. I just think a few little details got missed, probably because I’m awful at being clear. I’m almost as bad as that as I am at being concise.
But my mother is almost the opposite of a forced birther. She thinks abortion is necessary but should only be used as a last resort I don’t think that’s a horrible viewpoint and I don’t understand why anyone else would.
It’s strictly the term pro-life that everyone is agitated about and I’m starting to understand it in some way but the thing that bothers me is some people are acting like my mom is just as bad as people who bomb abortion clinics, or maybe not that bad, but like people who tell people are going to hell because they had an abortion or something simply because she’s using a phrase she started using before the assholes and doesn’t want to just cede it to them because she’s stubborn as fuck, lol.
It runs in the family as you can probably see LOL. If someone did say some s*** like that and my mother was there she would be totally appalled. Anyway I didn’t realize how late it was I probably won’t be able to give the summation I plan when I get home I’ll have to do it when I wake up. But thank you for your patience and understanding people who had patience and understanding.
And I honestly am not sure if Thou shalt not kill only means people. I don’t remember a place where it’s specifically states that and I’ve read the Bible cover to cover. So I guess it depends how you interpret it.
But I also don’t see how it helps to be snarky and mock my mom know obviously she does not think antibiotics are a sin when she’s truly trying to be introspective and be better after the conversations we had where I told her she really hurt me by deceiving me. How does mocking her help anything? Like someone who’s trying to do better(I think I mentioned that before those 2 comments) she’s starting to come to my side where I don’t believe it’s a sin at all and I explain very thoroughly why and I think I’ve gotten through to her and I think I expressed that above. But people still thought mocking my mother is appropriate, thank you for that.
If someone takes this as an attack it’s not, but I just honestly don’t believe someone as intelligent as the person who said it(plus the comment about bread that was snarky and obnoxious in my eyes too. No of course my mom does not think bread is a f****** sin) actually believes my mother thinks antibiotics are a sin. I think they said it to be mocking and snarky and I don’t understand how that could possibly help at all. It’s just unkind with no other aspects so why would you say that? What were you trying to accomplish by saying no jokes no obnoxiousness I truly want to know what the point of that statement was. Everyone have a lovely Saturday it’s the weekend yay!
Because she’s living in the same world as the rest of us, which means she’s fully aware of what the term means in mainstream usage, so if she decides to continue calling herself that, she is also deciding she doesn’t mind being mistaken for that movement and has no desire to distance herself from it.
Very seriously, I’m losing my patience here, did you actually read what we already said in response to this? Because we answered it. Dozens of times. What exactly was missing from our explanations? How about you recap for us what you think we answered so we can understand why you think we haven’t addressed this.
This is a horrible viewpoint. This viewpoint leads to options being reduced. It leads to chiseling away rights because people arbitrarily decide that abortion shouldn’t be allowed in [insert week here] which people will unquestioningly accept because, “well, it should be a last resort anyway.” It leads to doctors and pregnant people thinking more needs to be done to save a fetus, up to and including risking the life of the pregnant person, because it’s seen as an extreme measure that should not be taken unless no other alternative is available. It leads to “pregnancy crisis centers” that flat out lie to women about their options. It leads to sex ed classes that mislead young people into thinking abortion is bad.
I’m sorry that you disagree and that it hurts you to hear my views. But I’m not going to agree with you and I’m tired of defending my views to you.
If killing an insect is a sin, then how is knowingly killing millions of lifeforms not a sin? Is it only animals? Is that the difference? I’m being serious, here. Your argument was that to kill is a sin. When I make bread, which I do weekly, I purposely nurture, then kill millions of yeast. If all killing is a sin, how is that not?
Because your mother, from what you have described, is placing the potential life of a fetus above the life and autonomy of a human being. (And yes, saying it should only be done as a last resort does this and no I won’t debate it with you.) That’s extremely dark, and awful, and horrific. And on this blog we sometimes lighten the mood with snark. It’s not done to mock you but to explore the potential boundaries of this belief system you’ve presented us.
I had this reply all typed up and then I lost it. So now I’m typing it again… Argh.
Re: Your mom invented the term – she did not. I’m afraid I just don’t buy it, and I’ll tell you why… I don’t know the timeline of *when she was a nun*, but I do know she was devout enough to decide that that was a life path she could follow. That means she was pretty into the Catholic culture, and means she probably heard the term bandied about.
Here is what the ‘National right to life‘ organisation has to say about that: (WARNING: link is to their website)
But something like this doesn’t spring, fully formed, from the forehead of Zeus. According to Wikipedia,
Here’s a quote from 1973 from this catholic organisation, using the term ‘pro-life’
Over at Rational Wiki, we get an even earlier date for the term ‘pro-life’
Note how this originally was a left position (for catholics). So perhaps that explains how your mother came to it, and feels like it is progressive.
I also don’t know if the term pro-life as discussed in that book means the same thing as how it was used during the anti-war protests, but this goes to show that the term did exist.
In summary: the term existed, and was used. There was a far reaching organisation that used the term that started in 1968. It was used as far back s 1960.
Here’s why I’m annoyed: I asked you to do this work. You were the one with the extraordinary claim, that means *you* need to back it up.
I am with Kupo here. How about you explain what you think we’ve said (re: using the term ‘forced-birth’, the power of the organisations pushing the branding of ‘pro-life’, the effort necesssary to reclaim a term, such as ‘queer’.) and we’ll clarify past that.
Because we have answered this question.
Saying ‘last resort’ puts a value judgement on abortion that just shouldn’t be the case. It’s often used in the same breath as someone saying ‘we don’t want someone to use abortion as a form of birth control, getting pregnant and then getting an abortion again and again.”
And the problem with THAT idea is that it just isn’t true. The people see in their head a vapid teenager, or some horrific racist stereotype. And that just isn’t who is getting abortions.
According to this article –
So we need to adjust who we think of as needing abortions, because it often isn’t who people are thinking.
Also, as kupo said above, saying abortions are ‘a last resort’ means that they so often are. And then pregnant people die.
Also, people enacting these laws that say “only when the mother is in danger of imminent death” (where abortion is actually the last resort) have NO IDEA what that means. Because, guess what, that isn’t a medical term.
I’m looking for the post on Dr. Jen Gunter’s blog where she describes calling a legislator because she needed clarification on if she could perform an abortion on this woman, and I found this post on performing abortions after 20 weeks. It is a brilliant, and horrible, and I hope there are more people learning how to do these later abortions. I also know that there aren’t, because abortion being seen as a ‘last resort’ makes it easier to legislate against, or assign a window where it’s legal, and after that you are out of luck.
Here’s a post about the results of not having enough trained people to perform surgical abortions. She mentions needing to call a politician to see if her gravely ill patient is ill enough to get an abortion.
Here’s a post talking about a second woman in Ireland who needed an abortion, and who was jerked along by the system then in place to allow an abortion “when the life of a pregnant woman was at risk (not health, so kidney failure or heart attack don’t apparently matter for Irish women).”
Here’s one with a woman who will die, but because abortion should be a ‘last resort’, which made it easier to legislate that to mean ‘when the person carrying the child is in imminent danger of death’, and how they couldn’t do anything until they talked to a politician.
HERE IT IS!! Found it, describing calling a politician to get their okay for an abortion:
So, in summary… This is what designating an abortion as a ‘last resort’ does.
Sure, it’s important to have easy access to birth control and condoms. Sure, it’s also very important to have comprehensive and factual education about sex, gender identity, etc. (And to have that cover things *other* than just P-in-V sex, as if that’s all anyone will ever do.)
But it is also important to have easy access to judgement free abortion.
These are all important.
In conclusion – I don’t even know why I am still engaging with you. You keep asking the same thing again and again, and it is frustrating to type up a long thing, and just get “but my mom invented the term pro-life independent of everyone, why can’t she still use it?” back.
As I have now shown twice, it is very unlikely that she invented it herself. And, as others have said, if you invented the phrase ‘nazi’ as a contraction for ‘national socialist’ and then the nazi’s came along using that term, you would abandon it. UNLESS you wanted to make the effort to reclaim it (ex: the word ‘queer’, pepe the frog, racial terms I won’t use because I don’t belong to those groups). You would also need wide backing to try to ‘reclaim’ it, something which I have never heard of with the term ‘pro-life’.
I guess I’ll see if this was worth the time when I see your answer. Hopefully you think about what has been explained to you.
I’m not saying you can’t love your mom. I am saying that defending her usage of ‘pro-life’ isn’t good. Sometimes people we love have positions and ideals we don’t agree with, that is unfortunately just how life goes.
Because her group had 5 years of being totally innocently pro-life, during which time they apparently made such little impact on the world that you cannot find any kind of news article or historical reference to their super literally pro-life activism.
Meanwhile, the forced-birth bastards have had half a century of mass attacks on women’s bodily autonomy, which has been on display for all to see.
Which one do you think is going to define the word to the population in general?
Nazi originally meant a low-class clumsy person. That was the meaning of the word for decades before the Nazi party started implementing genocide. But that meaning doesn’t apply anymore, because the horrific actions of a group of bastards changed it.
You can’t change the meaning back to the original one just because you want it to mean that. It’s not how language works.
If your mom wants to go by pro-life, then she should know that anyone hearing that label is going to assume the word means what it does in the dictionary (i.e. Forced birth). She should know that the forced birthers will view her as an ally in their crusade against bodily autonomy, and that women and men who actually care about reproductive rights will view her as a threat to that bodily autonomy. She lives in this world, she knows what the pro-lifers have done.
What, specifically, does “last resort” mean?
If someone is pregnant and doesn’t want to be, then abortion is the only option left, right? There’s no “magically go back in time and prevent the pregnancy from ever happening” pill. Abortion IS the last resort once pregnancy happens.
Or does it mean (as I suspect) that not wanting to be pregnant isn’t “last resort” enough, and there needs to be extra reasons like health complications or poverty or rape?
Because that second one? That isn’t a “politically pro-choice” stance. That’s a pro-life stance, in the full meaning of the word as it is known to the world- i.e. Forced birth.
You’re the one who claimed that killing is a sin. The human body contains around 39 trillion bacterial cells (most of which are actually helpful, mutualistic bacteria), and antibiotics carpet-bomb those bacteria. Even if antibiotics only killed 1% of those bacteria, that’s the slaughter of 10 billion individual lives, most of which are entirely innocent collateral damage caused by us trying to kill the handful of bacteria causing the infection.
Surely if killing is a sin, no matter how what kind of life, antibiotics are on the scale of a war crime.
Or perhaps your mother isn’t actually consistent in her pro-life stance? I thought that was the admirable part in all of this.
* sorry, apparently I can’t math in the mornings. 1% of 39 trillion is actually the slaughter of 390 billion lives, not merely 10 billion.
I’m really not cool with the guilt trips here.
You are perceived as trying to pick a fight because that’s what you did. You brought up an argument from several months ago for no good reason. I had completely forgotten about it until you decided to sweep back in and talk about how mean people were to you. You could have just started commenting again like normal and all would have been fine.
We have answered every question and tried to educate you. We’ve answered every question multiple times. You dismiss the replies, double down, ask the same question over and over and refuse to back up your position. Why do we have to educate you but you can’t possibly be expected to educate us on this mysterious non anti-choice pro-life movement that nobody but you has ever heard of?
And saying over and over that you’re sensitive and insecure isn’t the free pass you want it to be. We are accommodating to sensitivity and mental illnesses here. That’s why people put content notes on upsetting content. It’s why joking about mental illness or speculating on the mental health of people who do or say something shitty is not allowed. But that doesn’t mean a single person should be allowed to hold everybody hostage because they will be upset if people disagree with them. Reproductive rights are a major feminist issue and we feel strongly about the subject. You can’t expect this or any other predominantly feminist space to keep opinions about it quiet just for the sake of your feelings. It’s selfish and manipulative to keep responding to us with pleas about your emotions.
As others have said, this is an anti-choice opinion. I think it’s pretty uncontroversial around these parts to say that misogyny and racism still exist despite the fact that discrimination based on sex or race is illegal. Wouldn’t you agree with that? The same principle applies here. If you don’t think abortion should be outlawed, but that it’s immoral to seek abortion care unless it’s a last resort, you are adding to a culture in which women are seen as incubators rather than humans worthy of dignity and autonomy. Equality is more than just about the law, it’s also about attitudes toward marginalized groups and getting rid of those attitudes that are harmful.
Fantastic link that a friend shared:
This is a consequence of having abortions, but only as a last resort.
Also, Dr. Jen Gunter has a book!! This is the preorder link from her site (maybe she gets money from ordering from it?), but you could also click the one on this site if you want to. Couldn’t find it not on amazon for a real book, sorry.
KatieKitten,
Yes, you came in here to pick a fight. If an accurate description of your behavior is something you find hurtful, that’s not my problem. If you find disagreement so traumatic, don’t pick fights on the internet.
You’re being mocked because we can see that you’re not commenting in good faith. In fact, here is a dictionary definition of your behavior:
Now cool it.
Okay again the picking a fight thing. I’m just not doing that. Why is it okay for you to tell me definitively what is in my head and my motivations when you obviously can’t see inside my head. I thought I could try to understand the rest of this because I had calmed down and realized I had been excessive which I pointedly apologized for, but I guess I’m picking fights when I’m pointing out all the things I love about the community here and apologizing for overreacting previously.
I’m the one picking fights when I’m asking questions and not mocking people’s family. Your last comment is complete b*******. How am I ignoring what people are saying I have specifically quoted multiple people who has helped me start understanding why we just accept a giant group of liars. I have not made any ad hominem attacks or mocked anybody. So how the f*** can you accuse me of trying to pick a fight?
Do you honestly not see the double standard? I’m reading and trying to respond to every specific point that is brought up please tell me what I’m ignoring? Because as I’ve said there’s a bunch of things I don’t comprehend so I keep asking questions and trying to make them more specific.
What exactly have I said that constitutes picking a fight purposefully and not just saying things that people find controversial because I want to understand why they are so controversial? I don’t understand. It looks to me but I hope I’m mistaken, when it’s an opinion that the majority disagrees with, people can just tell me what my motivations are and what I’m trying to do and that’s perfectly cool with everyone. But normally people are very against people telling others what’s inside their head because how can you possibly know what’s inside my head. that’s absurd.
You can say that’s how you perceive it but how can you say definitively that I personally I’m trying to pick a fight when I say I’m not. Are you calling me a liar? Because at this point that’s the literal only option when I’m saying no I truly do not want a fight. I just want to understand and I have poor social skills especially I have very little tact. Which I’ve said if you go back since my very first comment here many years ago.
This is not me trying to make people guilty or whatever someone say this is what I have claimed from the beginning. I am asking questions that are obviously controversial and make emotions run high because I’m honestly trying to understand isn’t that the literal definition of arguing in good faith ? Arguing in good faith means you are actually trying to comprehend the other people. Are you honestly claiming I’m not trying to understand? Because I find it utterly ridiculous if so, what do you think I’m trying to accomplish? Obviously I’m trying to understand why this specific case is so different than a lot of other things.
And also I’m not claiming she and her friend in their freshman year of college 1969 literally invented the phrase Pro life. I’m saying they liked it they adopted it for their group. I’m honestly not positive whether it was a case of hearing it and liking it or someone thinking of something that it already been thought up. Why does that definitively constitute picking a fight?
I left for months because I accidentally started a fight why in God’s name would I do it on purpose that just doesn’t make sense! What could possibly be my motivation for such a thing. I’m in a confused situation because I’m trying to parse beliefs that aren’t entirely or even mostly mine they are my mother’s therefore I get a little confused and jumbled sometime.
Maybe I’m being naive and socially inept and awkward, but I really don’t understand what snarking and mocking on my mom accomplished. And obviously that would make a good number of people, even ones who aren’t incredibly oversensitive offended.
I mean she’s my mother who has many flaws but also many good qualities, disagreement is not the problem. I’ve said that a bunch of times. I feel like you are doing exactly what you’re accusing me of. That’s what debate is by definition people disagreeing. I just don’t think snarking on someone’s mother is an appropriate way to do so like I said before what is that statement trying to accomplish?
Everything I asked whether it bothers someone or not is me trying to learn something and educate myself. Just because it’s an unpopular viewpoint that means my mother deserves mockery? No I do not get that I’m sorry.
Maybe I went off on a tangent here but I think it’s completely ridiculous and the fact that a few others are like yeah mocking her mother and snarky at her mother is perfectly cool because she’s disagreeing with us really bothers me. I can’t put into words exactly why but that does not seem open-minded and Progressive and kind at all to me. It would never cross my mind snark at or mock someone’s mother in any way at all because it’s just not appropriate behavior ever, that’s how I was raised.
It’s Saturday so I’m still working but I literally I am astounded that even a tiny number people are being snarky toward and mocking my mother. Like actually think about that separate from this. When how and why would that ever be appropriate and it’s not helpful it’s unkind and really it’s just petty and beneath people as intelligent as most of the people here. Like seriously obviously it’s not meant truly nastily but making fun of my mother is not a kind thing to do. I haven’t done anything like that to anyone.
I have offended people by being ignorant and asking questions but no I have not purposefully made ad hominem insults for anybody and I’m the one that’s trying to start fights? So what should I do? The impression I’m getting is my questioning from pure ignorance when I truly want to learn and understand and educate myself is worse than people literally mocking my senior citizen mother. I don’t get that.
We are not literally mocking your senior citizen mother. We’re mocking the idea that abortion is wrong because killing is a sin, no matter what you kill. We’re mocking an idea that you’ve told us your mother possesses. This is not the same thing as mocking your mother. Attacking an idea and attacking a person are separate things. Which you should be aware of, given that you’ve referenced ad hominem attacks in your post.
If I said something like that your mother was wrong in her stance about abortion because she’s a doddering old idiot who can’t tell her head from her ass, then I would be mocking your mother and making an ad hominem attack. But I would never say that about your mother. Because I don’t know your mother, and because saying that kind of thing is hurtful and unproductive.
Saying that an idea your mother allegedly holds is a bad one is not mocking her, it’s merely pointing out the flaw in her logic.
Also, you truly want to learn? You’re not picking a fight? Here, how about I quote you from a page back?
What part of I WILL DIE ON THIS HILL doesn’t sound like fighting words? What part of I WILL DIE ON THIS HILL indicates that you’re willing to consider other people’s points and arguments, and that you truly just want to learn?
You seem to be much, much more invested in getting the commentariat to tell you that of course your mother is a wonderful, perfect person who can do no wrong and never held a harmful belief in her life than you are in learning.
You’re ignoring the repeated information about how that “giant group of liars” has been systematically stripping and destroying women’s reproductive rights. About how the pro-lifers have been ravaging the lives of vulnerable women for half a century. About all the horrific things that have been committed in the name of “pro-life”. About how the Supreme Court is, at this very moment being stacked so that they can mount an attack on Roe V. Wade and the reproductive rights of all US women.
You’re ignoring us when we point out that the same stances that your mother holds are ones that have been used to justify the horrific actions that the pro-lifers have taken.
You seem to be much, much more angry about the fact that society hasn’t condemned the pro-lifers for being lying liars who lie, rather than the fact that the pro-lifers have been attacking and destroying basic human rights.
You seem to care much more about if your mother was allegedly mocked by strangers online than if women have their right to their own bodies shamed, berated, guilt-tripped, or forcibly taken from them.
I’ve been hesitant to jump in on this conversation, it’s a bit too blurry for me. The posts are also hard to follow, I’m afraid. But I’ve felt bad for not posting too. So I will, but I’ll be brief.
@Katiekitten420, it’s really clear that this is causing you some honest anguish, and that you’re confused about the reaction you’re getting. I’m gonna try to clarify things a bit. It’s okay to be confused about social interactions – it’s a sign that you’re missing something important, and that can lead you to new understanding.
Also, important to say – i’m not writing any of this to be mean! I’m trying to give you another perspective from the other side of this, to help you understand why this conversation isn’t working.
You’ve been making people upset – I won’t use the words “starting fights” – because it seems like you’re unwilling to accept anything but agreement in this. You’ve refuted every alternative by repeating your original position. This makes it feel like you basically aren’t listening (though I know that you are), and causes upset and offense.
It’s okay for you to believe differently from everyone else. It’s okay for you to believe your mom’s “pro-life” stance is different. It’s not okay to try to make everyone else agree with you on what “pro-life” means, though. You’re just gonna have to accept that your mom’s meaning of the word is different from the general definition, and that the world in general isn’t going to take that ride along with you. There are far too many ghouls and monsters that use the term “pro-life” as a chain and lash to associate it with anything benign.
(as an aside on that – the “snark and mockery” pointed at your mom that you were talking about in your last post. I can tell you where that comes from. Some of us here have been harmed quite deeply by people that were nice on the surface but turned mean when the topic of abortion came up; for a lot of us, that sudden cruelty is the definition of “pro-life”. So that’s where the snark comes from, and that’s why you’re having a hard time getting anyone to agree with you.)
I hope that this helps you understand what’s going on in this conversation. It’s not that you’re intending to cause a fight, it’s just mutual frustration I think. You gotta accept that you aren’t gonna be getting agreement on this one, that’s all. Sometimes a mutual understanding isn’t possible.