Might just be me having to deal with a roommate with anger and violence issues when I was twelve but some people really just need to learn the importance of tact and the value of keeping mum. All this cancel culture stuff just rubs me of people who have never faced proper consequences for their words and actions before. Learn to read the room, gauge the people you're talking to, know that some people might kill you in your sleep if you say the wrong thing and that sometimes circumstances will force you to stay in that sort of environment for months on end.
Losing your job and reputation? Kinda weaksauce if you ask me. It could be worse. Man still gets paid even, just no more power over people.
Comment has been collapsed.
know that some people might kill you in your sleep if you say the wrong thing
True, but you have to admit this is a bit ironic for a "camp" that pretends to make the world a tolerant safe-space where you can go as far as to create your own gender
Comment has been collapsed.
I...don't know what you're getting at. I prefer to use whatever gender is proposed as a general matter of courtesy because not at least trying comes off as rude and overbearing.
Comment has been collapsed.
All I'm saying is that level of violent intolerance is a bit uncanny from people who pretend they are the kind and accepting ones (and who indeed not only tolerate but even encourage some crazy things... as long as it suits their views).
Comment has been collapsed.
Being tolerant doesn't mean having to take shit from people with huge privilege and zero empathy for other human beings' issues (aka intolerant).
Paradox of tolerance and all.
Comment has been collapsed.
You don't have to listen to them, yes. But trying to eliminate someone just for things they said... that's not paradox of tolerance, that's censorship plain and simple.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are clinging to the "eliminate with violence" thing when nobody is justifying that. Stop arguing in bad faith or learn to read.
Comment has been collapsed.
Are...are you trying to upsplain 'violence' to me? To me? Are you serious? No, this isn't 'violent intolerance.' How on earth can you even consider what happened here 'violent'?
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, trying to starve someone isn't violent. Whatever helps you sleep at night Mr "know that some people might kill you in your sleep if you say the wrong thing" (which, in case someone reads this without the comment history, is a quote of your words and not mines)
Comment has been collapsed.
Firing someone who's a liability is not and has never been classified as 'violence' and it's actually kinda weird that you think otherwise.
Also, the man was the boss of a relatively popular game company. If he starves despite his stock options then honestly that's on him. As I said before, his situation's actually pretty mild. I faced much worse when I was 12 and even my dumbass 12-year-old self handled that situation better than his grown adult self did his significantly easier predicament.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wait... who starved anyone? If no one wants to work with me, then I shouldn't expect to have a job in that place anymore. This is all this ends up being.
If a contractor I hire normally turns out to be a misogynist, then I likely wouldn't want to hire them anymore and I would decide to pay someone else.
You really want an employer to not have the right to choose who they employ?
Comment has been collapsed.
I mean "violent intolerance" goes towards a group that literally murders doctors that perform abortions and bomb abortion clinics and are apart of the fastest growing source of terror attacks in the Western world. I guess when you stand with those people, how long can you expect people to just nod along and say it's fine?
Comment has been collapsed.
One side of the political spectrum is free to scream every belief they have to the mountains, the other has to be quiet or risk consequences. That's acceptable to you?
Conservatives aren't targeting people's livelihoods for expressing different opinions. It's comical to me that anyone thinks it's okay to do this.
Comment has been collapsed.
What the fuck are you even talking about man? Conservatives are literally going around shooting people just for being LGBTQ - not even "expressing different opinions", just literally existing. They are calling teachers "groomers" and trying to get them fired and/or jailed because they dare let kids read books that contain two males in a relationship, or teach about the shameful parts of American history ("That's the CRT Fox News warned me about!"). And if you really want to complain about "Cancel Culture" (which is really just an attempt to stigmatise a person's freedom not to associate or do business with bigots, under the thinly veiled bullshit disguise of "innocent people are being censored just for having conservative opinions!") then why don't you ask how The (formerly Dixie) Chicks felt about being blackballed for not supporting the Iraq war; or how hundreds of LGBTQ people over the last couple hundred years have had to hide who they were under threat of being killed, fired, jailed, or ostracised from their communities; or how people of colour have been literally enslaved, deliberately targeted by the legal system, and continue to be discriminated against (in everything from prison time to police brutality to employment opportunity) even today.
And if there's any confusion about the idiocy of conservatives complaining about Cancel Culture when they practically invented and perfected it, look no further than the infamous phrase "go woke, go broke" which conservatives are too stupid to realise is literally an admission that they will proudly punish any person or company for being "woke" (ie. too accepting of anyone who's not a straight white Christian male).
Meanwhile, liberals/the left don't want to throw their money and support at - or god forbid think we shouldn't actively platform and promote - people/businesses who are actively doing bigoted things, or saying equally shitty and hateful things which is almost as bad (don't pretend that words can't cause harm) and you act like it's the worst fucking thing in the world, as if there was some massive logical conflict in people not being tolerant of intolerance.
Yes, you got it right: one side - the one not causing any societal harm and wanting people to be free to be themselves (as long as it causes no harm to anyone else) without fear or discrimination - is free to scream their beliefs to the mountains, and the other - the side with the guns threatening people for existing - has to be quiet or risk consequences. Yes that's fucking acceptable. Sorry you feel threatened by this incredibly minor turning of the tide after literally centuries of bullshit, but as the saying goes, "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression". You can either get with the program, or stay the fuck out the way of society finally making progress, just don't expect any sympathy for your salty conservative tears.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't want to interrupt your friendly discussion, but...
You can either get with the program, or stay the fuck out the way of society finally making progress
What a sweet, heart-warming, liberal thought is this. /s
Comment has been collapsed.
"Oh my stars, the librul said a no-no word, they aren't allowed to do that!".
Yes, liberals support social progress, that's the whole point.
Comment has been collapsed.
Conservatives are literally going around shooting people just for being LGBTQ - not even "expressing different opinions", just literally existing.
-- You talking about the night club shooting that just happened. By someone who is non binary? Please do tell how that was a conservative. Did you not get the narrative change on that one?
They are calling teachers "groomers" and trying to get them fired and/or jailed because they dare let kids read books that contain two males in a relationship -
No they are calling teachers "groomers" when they post videos to their own Tik Tok that display extremely questionable attitudes towards little kids and sexuality - no kid in elementary school needs to be exposed to any form or fashion of sexuality. None of these teachers are also in danger of getting fired because of misconstrued information, it's LITERALLY what they posted in their own accounts.
Also none of those teachers are in danger of getting jailed, tone down the hyperbole.
Or teach about the shameful parts of American history ("That's the CRT Fox News warned me about!").
No one has a problem teaching shameful parts of American history (although y'all do love to hide the shameful history that the Confederates and KKK were Democrats) they do have a problem teaching concepts of equity, white privilege,
Yes, you got it right: one side - the one not causing any societal harm and wanting people to be free to be themselves (as long as it causes no harm to anyone else) without fear or discrimination
- Keeping young children out of school, when it was known within 2-3 months that they had little to no chance of dying from covid is harmful
- Forcing people to take vaccines that they don't want is harmful
- Forcing people into lockdowns is harmful - people losing their business, watching family members die w/out being by their side, that's all harmful.
- Then insisting that it's OK to break lockdowns and riot because of a myth that black folks suffer disproportionately due to police brutality is harmful
- Kicking people out of our military over a vaccine mandate in a time where there are two extremely dangerous global bad actors is harmful
- Insisting on a nuclear deal with a rogue state that is brutally murdering it's people for protesting is harmful
- Destroying the economy with inflationary spending that everyone knew was coming is harmful
- Exposing young children to drag queens is harmful
- Exposing young children to 'kink' is harmful
- Not allowing oil or gas production when gas prices are through the roof is harmful
And shit just for general purpose: Not allowing free speech is harmful. Not attempting to consider the opinions or ideas of your political opposition as anything other then wrong or evil is harmful (and stupid). I guarantee I know why you think the things you do, even if I don't agree with them. I also guarantee you can't say the same for anyone on the opposite side of your arguments without saying they are bigots or evil.
What's funny is I could list another 50 items that Lefists have done that have caused immense societal harm. And I could provide documentation to show that every single one has happened or is happening. I don't think you can provide concrete examples because you're very clearly uninformed, and simply parroting the party line.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dude, there are literally laws right now popping up all over the place that make it a fireable offense for teachers to talk about gender or sexual orientation to their students. How is that not targeting the livelihood of people for expressing opinions you don't like?
Actually it's even worse because it comes from government authorities, which makes it the definition of censorship.
And you're really going to stand here and try to look offended because some asshat lost his title (not his job, his money, his shares etc) for opening his mouth on a public forum under official account for something neither his business nor himself have anything to do with?
The market took care of him. Aren't conservatives for free market?
Comment has been collapsed.
All over the place is extremely exaggerated. You're obviously talking about the Florida bill which is pretty damn short, https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF
Go ahead and read it, because it's only fireable for 'Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students '
Keywords there are instructions, not small comments, or responses to questions asked by students. Beyond that it's for K-3.
It SHOULD be a fireable offense to talk to K-3 kids about sexual orientation and gender identity. They are KIDS they don't need to know anything about sex until they get older.
Now, you either didn't know this - because you heard from some media outlet it was the don't say gay bill and just bought whatever they sold, or you DID know it and you think k-3 kids need to be taught anything involving sex shit.
Also, no it doesn't make it the definition of censorship. They are hired government employees. The government has the right to regulate their employees, which they do via laws passed.
Also - he didn't lose his job because he opened his mouth on a public forum for something his business had nothing to do with - he opened his mouth and gave WRONGTHINK and that's why he was cut loose. No one gave a shit if he said "Yeah im all for abortion!" Again, your side of the fence has decided that nothing is a disagreement based on actual morals or opinions - it's all "He's evil because X" So yeah, that's pretty offensive.
And no the market didn't take care of him. If the market took care of him his products would have failed, the business would have gone under, and then you could argue the market took care of him. What took care of him was public pressure from a small very online puritanical nazis and the games media that's one and the same. There are 3 million average players of Killing Floor 2 - I bet not 1-2% said anything about the controversy. That's not free market, that's bullshit woke scolding and canceling.
Comment has been collapsed.
he opened his mouth and gave WRONGTHINK and that's why he was cut loose
I don't know wtf "wrongthink" is because I don't speak alt-right but no, he wasn't. He was removed from his position, while retaining everything attached to it, because customers, as they are entitled to in a free market (once again, correct me if I'm wrong but that's something the conservatives used to support), decided not to give their money to support him.
His company was the one who removed him from his position, as they are entitled to do, and yet nobody is blaming them. They could have stuck it out but they didn't. They threw him under the bus of public opinion. Why? Because businesses are in the business of making money.
He was completely entitled to be a moron to his friends, colleagues and anyone who was within hearing distance of him but he did not. He took to social media to do some... wait... there's an alt-right word for that, let me look... oh yeah "virtue signalling" because he thought he was going to get some "hell yeah, brother!" and instead it didn't go his way so now he is bitching on national tv that he is silenced, proving by doing so that he is in fact, not.
And no the market didn't take care of him. If the market took care of him his products would have failed, the business would have gone under, and then you could argue the market took care of him
That's what would have happened if he was the sole business owner of a corner ice cream shop in Manhattan. But he wasn't. The board members of his company removed him to avoid that conclusion because they didn't want to lose their jobs because he is a moron (and again, I'm not saying that because of the opinion he expressed so much as for him expressing the way he did on a public forum)
There are 3 million average players of Killing Floor 2 - I bet not 1-2% said anything about the controversy
You can bet all you want but you are just guessing. I'm pretty sure his company has better figures than you do.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bragging about not knowing the term wrongthink isn't the own you think it is. It comes from 1984.
I also sincerely doubt the guy thought he was going to get some hell yeah brother for coming out with what is so obviously an incredibly unpopular opinion in his field. It's a fair point I'm guessing, but you are as well - and it's logically more consistent that in an industry at least vocally dominated by left opinion, he wasn't trying to get social credits for his opinion.
Also, again, people on twitter does not equal customers, it equals loud obnoxious cultists trying to cancel you.
The board & board ownership is all fair points, and I'm fine with that. But you'll also notice I didn't jump out to defend this guy in any of my original posts - but just to say that this shit is happening one way and not the other. I agree with his opinion on abortion, but absolutely he should know better then too speak out on politics in a company - that USED to be the agreed upon position for all parties.
Also I notice you failed to comment on the laws you thought conducting censorship.
Comment has been collapsed.
what is so obviously an incredibly unpopular opinion in his field
Not just in his field but the guy is in Texas so he probably fell into the trap that a lot of people fall into: thinking that you and the 10 people you know represent the "silent majority"
Also, again, people on twitter does not equal customers, it equals loud obnoxious cultists trying to cancel you.
You can say the same thing 20 times with different words, that doesn't make it true.
Also I notice you failed to comment on the laws you thought conducting censorship.
That was just an example but sure, let's get into it. The text of the law matters very little in the end. The effect of the law though, is that every chicken shit principal is now entitled to prevent free speech on school grounds, because they are scared of losing their job.
Tell me how it's different from what you say happened to the Tripwire guy.
Besides, by remaining purposefully vague on what constitutes "instruction" of sexual identity and gender, and using broad language like "“age appropriate or developmentally appropriate.” for students past kindergarten, the law is effectively muzzling public school teachers who, I promise you, don't have the money to lawyer up every time a student asks something LGBTQ related.
And sure enough, it's a winning strategy since a whole lot of policies not inherently covered by the law that are effectively censorship (including censorship of books, of student associations, of clothing or symbols etc)
So if that's not conducting censorship, please tell me what censorship conduction looks like. Just to say again that it doesn't just look like a bunch of "woke snowflakes" on social media berating poor conservatives and making them lose their livelihood.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's an absurd rational - nearly every Game Dev on twitter is openly left leaning if not left. He even admitted it in his initial tweet.
And again - why is it ok for some people to engage in politics but not others.
Teachers are public servants hired to work for the government, and to do teach and do what the government tells them to do not what they deem is necessary to teach. You are not censoring your employees if you tell them while on the clock they can't say certain things. That's the rule in every job under the sun. Why should teachers be different? Is it censorship if a public school teacher wants to teach creation theory but is told they have to teach evolution?
Besides I didn't equate twitter fascists targeting people and attacking them online & attempting to cost them their jobs as censorship. It's not. It's a disgusting tactic, but it's not censorship.
Here's a good example of censorship. The DOJ declaring that parents protesting these kinds of things at their school boards are domestic terrorists in an attempt to chill their speech and silence them. That's censorship.
I like also that you keep arguing I'm speculating things but then you decide you know how a law is going to play out above and beyond it's written text.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are not censoring your employees if you tell them while on the clock they can't say certain things. That's the rule in every job under the sun
Ironic. Do you realize that's literally what Tripwire did when they decided to retire their CEO from his title, right?
Unsurprisingly we do seem to have wandered off the point completely. The point was not compare prejudice (and declare one side were more victimized than the other), the point was you were saying conservatives have never used those tactics and I was showing you they actually have.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ironic. Do you realize that's literally what Tripwire did when they decided to retire their CEO from his title, right?
What? No it's not. Gibson posted that on his personal account during his free time. He didn't say anything inside the company not even on company hours.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dude, there are literally laws right now popping up all over the place that make it a fireable offense for teachers to talk about gender or sexual orientation to their students
Not true but I wish you were right because outside of safe sex, teachers shouldn't have to say anything to students about their gender or sex - that is something that, for better or for worse, kids learn as they grow up - I myself was very sexually confused up until I was around 19~. People grow up and get to know what they like it's a natural part of growing up in our current society.
Comment has been collapsed.
Would it be better for kids to learn some things from their parents? Sure. Should it be illegal for teachers to educate children? No.
Again, not starting a debate on that BS, just disputing the fact that liberals are on a witch hunt whereas poor conservatives never ever ever ever tried to f**k with someone's livelihood or position for saying something they don't like.
Comment has been collapsed.
but that's not messing with some ones position. The public schools are run by the government, they set the rules. You're just conveniently ignoring it.
If your job tells you don't do X you don't get to X - if you want to keep your job. Why should a teacher be exempt from that.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're just conveniently ignoring it.
I am not. I was just not conceding your point because that's not what I was talking about. And if public schools are fair game because they are run by the government, then Tripwire is also entitled to tell their ex CEO to sit down and shut the fuck up, as they are paying him his checks. Do you see how you tripped yourself there?
Comment has been collapsed.
just disputing the fact that liberals are on a witch hunt whereas poor conservatives never ever ever ever tried to f**k with someone's livelihood or position for saying something they don't like.
This of course is something that has happened in the past - 15~ years ago, if not less... But nowadays it's the oppossite. Liberals are the ones conducting the witch hunt, specially on the internet, and on tech-related fields. I agree there's obviously conservatives doing it aswell, but to say it's not much more prominent with liberals would be outright false.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not a contest of who is getting the worst of it. Because invariably, you're always going to see your side as the victim of the other side.
Another poster made a point to say that conservatives never did that. I was correcting that misconception, with recent examples.
but to say it's not much more prominent with liberals would be outright false.
Opinions and facts are so often confused.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not a contest of who is getting the worst of it. Because invariably, you're always going to see your side as the victim of the other side.
I disagree. You don't have to see your side as the victim. I'm very far from a conservative but the current sociopolitical and sociocultural climate has made it very clear to me that a lot of these neoliberals want anyone that doesn't agree with them silenced and their life quality damaged.
Opinions and facts are so often confused.
Yeah. You thought I was stating an opinion after all.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe I get you wrong here, but how to teach safe sex without any anatomical or sexual education as well? Not sure when this is brought up in US schools, but here it's once already in elementary school and then extended when you have biology in high school. At least back when I had been at school. Just scientific facts, no opinions of course.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe I get you wrong here, but how to teach safe sex without any anatomical or sexual education as well?
Teaching anatomical education is a bit different from sexual education. Kids have the right to know where babies come from and whatnot - I'm not oppossed to that. But from there to teaching sexual orientations, gender, etc - That's a big gap. I'm not oppossed to schools teaching about sex and how to do it safely, i'm oppossed to schools teaching about subjects like these as they are extremely volatile, heavily opinionated and simply things that are going to confuse them when the reality is even adults don't fully understand them yet.
Comment has been collapsed.
In this context I meant anatomy of the genitals. We weren't shown how to use a condom, but we talked about contraceptives and how they work. If you have sex education for a couple of weeks in either sociology or biology, I would expect the teacher to mention genders and sexual orientation. Not in depth, just listing the terms and explaining them shortly without any positive or negative connotation..
School doesn't need to teach about how to have good sex, about positions or fetishes, that's up to everyone while growing up and making own experiences or by reading upon it. Nowadays it's so easy to read up things online, back in my time we only had encyclopedias (if parents could afford it) or go to the library. However, gender identity and social orientation aren't private things like these, because you will encounter them in life at some point and basic knowledge is useful or even required at times.
If I was like 12-16 years old now and someone I meet would bring up a term like "pansexual" in whatever context, I would feel pretty dumb if I didn't know it. Or if I was thinking that "gay" is a funny insult, because I heard other students using it. Or looking at job offers or official documents and not knowing what "divers" means. And afterwards I'd be pissed off by teachers and parents for not teaching it. Unfortunately many parents avoid sexual education at all costs, so I see the responsibility at school. Personally, I'd have probably learned about it from media, since I was actually reading newspaper on daily basis as a kid already, but not every kid/teen does that.. and it's often not their fault.
Comment has been collapsed.
"You talking about the night club shooting that just happened."
I wasn't, because to the surprise of no one there has been more than one incident of conservatives shooting LGBT people. The FBI aren't exactly hiding the stats regarding the sharp rise of far-right domestic terrorism.
"By someone who is non binary? Please do tell how that was a conservative. Did you not get the narrative change on that one?"
Let's go along with the "narrative" that the shooter in this particular case is non-binary, which would be odd considering they had expressed anti-LGBTQ sentiment for years prior, and no one who knew them knew they were non-binary, in fact the only time it came up was in their criminal defense, which I'm sure wasn't just a convenient excuse to avoid hate crime charges. What you're implying here is that it's impossible for a non-binary person to be conservative. Now why would that be? I thought conservatives went out of their way to tell everyone they aren't the racist, homophobic, bigoted people they keep being labelled as based on their actions? Wasn't it the RNC who said they had taken "unprecedented steps" to protect the LGBTQ community? Ooh, you're so close to doing the conservative thing of saying the quiet part out loud.
"No they are calling teachers "groomers" when they post videos to their own Tik Tok that display extremely questionable attitudes towards little kids and sexuality - no kid in elementary school needs to be exposed to any form or fashion of sexuality."
Maybe? But they are also calling teachers "groomers" because they happened to mention their same-sex partner in casual conversation, or have a library that contains books with LGBTQ content (some of which - to be fair - might be explicit, but no worse than some of the hetero content which is being ignored; and some of which isn't explicit at all), I mean they are literally banning and burning books. I thought your whole argument was that absolute freedom of speech was a good thing that only liberals want to suppress?
"No one has a problem teaching shameful parts of American history"
Tell that to the talking heads on Fox News (don't pretend like you don't watch it everyday), or the politicians rallying around "Critical Race Theory", who are more than happy to keep the term so vaguely defined that it can be applied to basically any content that makes rich white people uncomfortable This isn't a secret, the term has been deliberately weaponised to be used this way, the guy who did so literally posted his plan online in public.
"(although y'all do love to hide the shameful history that the Confederates and KKK were Democrats)"
Umm...no? I haven't seen any liberals hiding this lie? Though liberals will happily teach you about the party switch and the Southern Strategy, and point you to reality; though unfortunately you can lead a conservative to the truth, but you can't make them comprehend it.
"they do have a problem teaching concepts of equity, white privilege, "
Yes! That's the point! Finally! It's bad not to teach those things! Why on earth would you think it's a bad thing to teach children not to be bigoted shitheels like you, or the obvious fact that historical injustices have generational impacts on people even today?
"Something something COVID wasn't real, Republicans didn't increase federal debt, liberals are satanic pedophiles, a bunch of alt-right lies"
Yeah, nah, not gonna bother. Come back when you have something other than insane ramblings.
"And shit just for general purpose: Not allowing free speech is harmful."
No, it's not. And there is no country or platform that permits absolute free speech that isn't an unmitigated disaster. And examples of conservatives not supporting free speech are plentiful and easily found (see: the book burnings above). Hell, conservatives not only want liberals to stop calling out shitty behaviour (an example of speech suppression), but want to force people to give money to companies they don't want to (why else would they demonise "cancel culture"?).
"Not attempting to consider the opinions or ideas of your political opposition as anything other then wrong or evil is harmful (and stupid)."
When your "political opinions" consist of "our political enemies are literal baby-eating demons and pedophiles" and "LGTBQ people shouldn't exist" then yeah you can fuck right off with those "opinions", they are wrong and evil, and holding those views is the truly stupid thing. The fact that you think these are valid "political opinions" says a lot about you.
"I guarantee I know why you think the things you do, even if I don't agree with them. "
Unless your answer is, "because you are normal human who has compassion and empathy and at least a basic ability to think critically, all which I am incapable of" then no, you fucking don't know shit about me, piss off with your sanctimonious holier-than-thou attitude.
" I also guarantee you can't say the same for anyone on the opposite side of your arguments without saying they are bigots or evil."
No, I don't think the only reason you hold your shitty views is because you're bigoted and evil. I think stupidity, brainwashing, religious indoctrination, and a lack of education (no prizes for guessing which party is doing their best to promote these things!) have a lot to do with it too. No this isn't all conservatives, and I never said it was despite your suggestions otherwise (I understand nuance is difficult for people like yourself), I know there are plenty of people who vote R but aren't bigoted, and do support sane things like universal healthcare, the right to abortion, and protections for minorities (statistics easily prove this).
"What's funny is I could list another 50 items that Lefists have done that have caused immense societal harm. And I could provide documentation to show that every single one has happened or is happening."
Ok, good for you? Politicians and individuals can do shitty things, film at 11. Though despite how easy and unremarkable it would be to do so, with dumb, bad faith takes like "Exposing young children to drag queens is harmful" and "Forcing people to take vaccines that they don't want is harmful" I'm not even convinced you wouldn't fuck that up just as badly.
" I don't think you can provide concrete examples because you're very clearly uninformed, and simply parroting the party line."
LOL, real big brain move, I bet my arguments just slide right off that smooth brain of yours. What an unbelievably stupid thing to say. "Parroting the party line" says the guy who just rattled off a bunch of bullshit Tucker Carlson talking points without thinking. You're a fuckwit.
Comment has been collapsed.
dog you literally admitted to ignoring some of his points how are you still trying to take the high ground?
Comment has been collapsed.
dog you literally admitted to ignoring some of his points how are you still trying to take the high ground?
And your comment ignoring all their points is somehow better?
Comment has been collapsed.
Why should I bother to respond to a gish gallop mishmash of alt-right bullshit when it's nothing more than a deliberate distraction from the discussion at hand? Just because I think someone is a dishonest piece of shit doesn't obligate me to respond to literally every single brainfart they spew out. I've been far more generous in responding to as much of their points as possible than they have, and then dipshits like you come in like "zomg you didn't respond to point 57 of his 316-item Fox News copy-paste job" as if that somehow automatically loses me the debate. LOL fuck off loser. Stop with this "both sides" bullshit. Normal people can understand the nuance in the fact that a rapist is far worse than someone stealing bread to feed their family even though technically they are both criminals.
Comment has been collapsed.
Be on Tucker Carlson's
Say dumb shit
Play the victim
Classic.
Comment has been collapsed.
"I have been silenced!" - some wealthy dude on national television
Comment has been collapsed.
See, now you are just being mean. No need to be that way now. Keep it civil folks.
Comment has been collapsed.
Please refrain from personal attacks like these in the future. It is perfectly fine to disagree with the topic or the opinion of the OP but attacking them ad hominem like that is not a proper way to go
Comment has been collapsed.
That's 6 weeks into the pregnancy...
I don't agree with that.
If you are a person with influence you have to be careful with what you say, especially when it is on a topic that does not directly involve you. We are all allowed our opinions, but others are allowed to disagree, and if enough people disagree, your boss or shareholders might take notice.
It's like flipping the bird at the motorcade of a sitting President, no issue when no one else sees, a big problem when you go viral.
Actions > Consequences.
Comment has been collapsed.
Same and what's worse some of these people tend to call themselves "liberal".
I think classic liberals, like Voltaire would probably condemn them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yup. The funny thing is that I'm in favor of abortion rights, even in favor of extending them.
But when I see, in threads like this, that the only people that are able to have a civilized conversion about the topic (as opposed to wishing everyone who disagrees with them to starve to death) are those who oppose abortion, I really wonder if I have the right idea...
Comment has been collapsed.
I think no one denies the right to have an abortion (even "hardcore" laws allow these) in the case of rape or when the mother's life is endangered. But these cases are roughly about 5% (and I think I exagarrated there, but idk). We are talking about the other 95% which in the eyes of some people is just an extended method of birth control.
Some people act like as if they never heard of condoms or pills before, as if we were living in the middle ages.
Comment has been collapsed.
Condoms: 2$ for 10 condoms, easy to use, no health problems later, no moral hangover
Abortion: more than 2$ for sure xD, might fuck up you health later, might cause trauma later,
It would be great if that was teached in schools early xD So ALL dumb fucks learn to be resposible.
Comment has been collapsed.
Rather few people look at abortions as another method of birth control. Also no birth control is 100% effective. But I'm sure most anti-abortion men would still like to have sex before they are ready to have children.
You know what could decrease the number of abortions? Good sexual education and easy access to contraceptives. Exactly the things that anti-abortion evangelical conservatives are also against.
Comment has been collapsed.
Against good education? No, definitely not.
Contraceptives? Yep, the church is against, but seriously, who else?
Comment has been collapsed.
Contraceptives? Yep, the church is against, but seriously, who else?
Apparently the vast majority of Republican politicians, considering that 195 out of 203 House Republicans voted AGAINST legislation that would protect it as the Supreme Court made movements indicating they would allow it to be decided on the state level (just like what happened with abortion, leading to half the country immediately implementing some rather restrictive laws).
Comment has been collapsed.
I think no one denies the right to have an abortion (even "hardcore" laws allow these) in the case of rape or when the mother's life is endangered.
Many of the laws that were preemptively passed in the US did not offer exceptions in the cases of rape and incest.
Frankly, even in cases where there are exceptions written into law, the chance of someone being able to prove that they were raped (something infamously hard to do in a court), especially in time to be granted an exemption and have the procedure done, would be incredibly difficult. A victim would be better served going straight to a DIY option, particularly if they don't want others to know they've been raped (i.e. if they want the fetus out before they begin to show).
Comment has been collapsed.
I think no one denies the right to have an abortion in the case of rape or when the mother's life is endangered.
Tell that to the 10 year old girl from Ohio that was repeatedly raped by an adult, and was so young that being forced to have the baby would probably kill her, but she STILL had to go to Indiana to do it because Ohio had ZERO exceptions in their brand-new law after 6 weeks, and she wasn't diagnosed until 6 weeks and 3 days. Oh, and the doctor in Indiana who performed the procedure, despite following her state's laws to the letter, is still being investigated by the state's attorney general office trying to find ANY reason to make her lose her job and possibly arrest her, and she gets harassment and even death threats daily for "murdering a baby". But sure, let's just avoid talking about those types of situations because in your view it's only 5% of abortion cases.
Comment has been collapsed.
"I wholly disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."
According to the urban legend at least :)
Meanwhile "liberals" today report you on social media if your opinon differs from theirs.
One of them (either Voltaire or today's left-liberals) isn't a liberal, guess who?
Comment has been collapsed.
According to the urban legend at least :)
Yeah he never said that. Hence my comment. You should probably get to know more about his actual writings and opinions, and acts, before deputizing him into your arguments. This sentence was created by an American author in a book about Voltaire, to summarize what she thought his philosophy was about. And she was off the mark by quite a lot.
He actually thought people should think the consequences through before they express an opinion in public. That's from his actual writings and pleadings.
And he wouldn't have died for anyone's speech. In fact he gloated about one of his nemesis' publication being discontinued for creating too much trouble.
So I guess by your argument, neither were liberals.
Comment has been collapsed.
Classic liberals and the demoncrats from the USA are 180 Degree to each other.
Liberalism had freedom of speech at the core.
Comment has been collapsed.
the reason people flipped out on him is because he endorsed a law in Texas that allows ANYONE to sue someone if they suspect that they are getting an abortion. he endorsed vigilante bounty hunting against pregnant women.
Comment has been collapsed.
What do you mean by "stomping of women's reproductive rights"?
Hope you aren't referring to that killing babies is all right? It's probably something else, right?
Comment has been collapsed.
Babies are already born, and nobody who is sane kills a baby.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, when the fetus has heartbeats, they are already considered babies. But I'm sure you knew that already.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is no clear distinction for when "personhood" (or baby-status) starts. There's no specific point for that separating previous stages as fetal growth is a continuum. Some argue that it starts at conception, some argue that it starts after being separated from the mother, and many points inbetween. You might say "it's when the heart beats" (5-6 weeks), and that's just another vague line drawn. You could have said brain activity or size or any other measure.
We might have different ideas about it, but what I want to say is that it is definitely not a clear point. In the end what matters is the legal aspect and when is the fetus/baby considered a person legally and thus having right to life.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
this Is the better and not radical opinion.
this Is the problem with a few here, if they put a "in my opinion" before whatever they want to say, its fine (even if they say an atrocity).
bad things start when they make an afirmation, and throw shit on others, like if they are "the true" waking on earth.
beleives are one thing, law in different countries are another thing, one's consideration of "the moment"that someone begin to be a person Is another thing too.
already see a very radical opinion, that why I write this.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also, 5-6 weeks is right around when most people capable of having kids are only just noticing that they've missed a period. The wait for an abortion clinic appointment alone can be weeks long. You'd need to magically intuit your birth control failed before you had any sign you were pregnant.
Anyways, the argument for abortion is just this: nobody, even a currently living person, has a right to support from your own body. That's why we don't have forced organ donation programs, even when the other person's life will end if you don't donate to them, even when it's your kid who needs an organ. You always have a choice, as any person should. That's why even when you're dead, nobody can take anything from your corpse without permission. Hell, we don't even force blood donations, which have no negative effect on the person donating usually, even though blood is required to save lives. That's medical bodily autonomy.
Once a kid is born, they're independent of your body and you have an obligation as a fellow human being to treat them well or at least see them off to a place they'll be taken care of.
There's a great opinion piece here that points out, among other things, that pregnancy is 30 times more likely to kill you than abortion in the US.
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree. It's in the process of becoming a human. That does not make it a human yet. I think it takes more than just a heartbeat for it to be considered a baby. Also, if you force a woman to carry and give birth to a child against her will then you should be responsible for raising that child. It's funny how so many people who are against abortion don't care about the baby once it's born.
Comment has been collapsed.
I love how the right loves to protect "babies" at all costs, but then they forget about them after they're out. Public school and teaching budgets? Free school lunches? Student debt? School shootings? Nah dog forget about that.
Kinda like banning abortion is less about the babies and more about keeping the women and less wealthy opressed and submissive :O
Comment has been collapsed.
Our public schools are absolute dumpster fires - conservatives want school choice, and tax money to follow the student rather then the school. Free school lunches falls into the same.
Student Debt - not related to a baby anymore is it, it's a grown ass adult who chose what debt they take on.
Comment has been collapsed.
surprisingly enough, if it is a fetus. theyre actually considered a "fetus", not a baby
Comment has been collapsed.
Which is a baby practically, yes.
Like an egg in the case of chickens, but we are talking about humans here.
Comment has been collapsed.
just like an egg, we do not call a chicken's egg a "chicken". glad we're on the same page
Comment has been collapsed.
Well I am a human and you appear to be one too, just like the baby :)
I can't see what's so hard for you to understand.
Comment has been collapsed.
Which is a baby practically
"Practically" is where you get in trouble. It's like saying "I'm dead. Well, I'm still alive but at some point I'll be dead so I am practically dead right now"
Comment has been collapsed.
Well you can't come back from death (at least not likely), but you can prevent the death of an unborn baby. That's why many people are usually against abortion, hello.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's why many people are usually against abortion, hello.
Many uninformed people. Next time you masturbate, think about all these unborn babies you are killing. Sperm is practically a baby, isn't it?
Comment has been collapsed.
If you kill a fetus that was not borned you get in Comifornia homicide.
... Think about that.
If you kill a pregnant woman you have killed 2 people by the law.
Comment has been collapsed.
The law is not a justification for anything. There are unjust laws all over the world. There have been all over the world.
If you're a woman in Iran you have to wear a scarf under pains of death. Think about that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Gent this law is in the place that wants to legalize abortion up to 9 months but still has this law for homicide because it is logically that a pregnant women equals 2 distinct lives.
Think about it! And I mean logically and not emotionally.
A fetus that survived outside the womb the earliest was at 21 weeks in some countries abortion is up to 25 weeks, think about that also.
Most abortions are done by the individuals that have more than 2, think logically what that means. Also most abortions are done by individuals above the poverty line.
Laws should be made by critical thinking and statistics and not emotions that is all that we can say.
Comment has been collapsed.
Think about it! And I mean logically and not emotionally.
How about this for logic? A woman is not a birthing vessel. If men are so concerned about women killing babies (they are not getting pregnant from sex with dildos) then men should have a vasectomy, which is minimally invasive and can be reversed.
I guess women are too emotional to be left to make decisions about their own bodies, is that your argument?
Most abortions are done by the individuals that have more than 2, think logically what that means. Also most abortions are done by individuals above the poverty line.
Where are you getting this? WomenRkillingbabies.com? :P
Abortion is a private medical act and no statistics outside of information volunteered by women who are willing does exist, which means most stats are either fabricated or manipulated to work for one side or the other.
You also fail to mention all the times abortion is medically necessary to save mothers, most of whom actually want to remain pregnant.
Laws should be made by critical thinking and statistics and not emotions that is all that we can say.
No. Laws should be made to protect citizens from crime. Inventing crimes because it suits a political faction or another is cruel and unusual punishment.
Comment has been collapsed.
If men are so concerned about women killing babies (they are not getting pregnant from sex with dildos) then men should have a vasectomy, which is minimally invasive and can be reversed.
If women are so concerned about not wanting to get pregnant, then women should have a sterilisation, which is minimally invasive.
Comment has been collapsed.
But non reversible. Unlike vasectomy. Why are you so afraid of it? You think men shouldn't be told what to do with their bodies?
Comment has been collapsed.
Who said I was afraid? I think people should do whatever they want with their bodies. If someone wants to get a vasectomy good for them. Bit of a stretch imo considering there's so many ways to avoid pregnancy nowadays but who cares.
I was just making an example that women can avoid pregnancy through medical ways too. For example, Medroxyprogesterone acetate can not just avoid pregnancy, but can also have the side effect of not having periods. Which is an easier, safer and far better alternative to a vasectomy as it is just a shot you take every 3 weeks or so.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bit of a stretch imo considering there's so many ways to avoid pregnancy nowadays but who cares.
You only think that because you never had to worry about it. There is literally not one contraception method who is 100% effective. Vasectomy however is nearly 99% effective, and as such is one of the most effective contraception methods available.
I think people should do whatever they want with their bodies
That is actually ironic.
Which is an easier, safer and far better alternative to a vasectomy as it is just a shot you take every 3 weeks or so.
Long-term use of medroxyprogesterone may increase your risk of breast cancer, heart attack, stroke, or blood clot
So safer and a better alternative than a vasectomy? Nope. Also not a one time thing. You need pills to take, which is not free or reliable.
Comment has been collapsed.
You only think that because you never had to worry about it
Well you're right. I've always used protection so I've never had to worry about it.
Vasectomy however is nearly 99% effective, and as such is one of the most effective contraception methods available.
Cool then girls who don't want to get pregnant can get it! Just like dudes who don't want to impregnate.
That is actually ironic.
I'm going to take a wild guess and say you're saying this because you think I'm anti abortion, which I'm not. Remember that the 'clump of unconscious cells' a fetus is eventually grows into a fully formed human being which still means you are effectively killing a human if you kill a fetus. I'm all for abortion but don't pretend it's anything but a kill.
Long-term use of medroxyprogesterone may increase your risk of breast cancer, heart attack, stroke, or blood clot
The numbers for this are small and as I've said before it does have side effects but the point of that example was to show that there are plenty of ways to avoid getting pregnant or impregnating. Use a condom, take a pill, mix every single birth control on earth. Yes there will still be a 1% chance of pregnancy but that doesn't mean you shouldn't use birth control methods.
So safer and a better alternative than a vasectomy? Nope.
okay just get a vasectomy then
Also not a one time thing. You need pills to take, which is not free or reliable.
They're covered by healthcare in most if not all of the EU. The USA also has job positions where you can get healthcare. What kind of job are you getting that this isn't covered in there?
As for reliability as I've said before you can still combine it with other forms of pregnancy control
The fact of the matter is you're trying to push male vasectomy because "w-well it's reversible" like you can just get a vasectomy one day and the next decide you don't like it adn reverse it. Which is not possible.
Comment has been collapsed.
Cool then girls who don't want to get pregnant can get it! Just like dudes who don't want to impregnate.
lol "girls" can get a vasectomy? Hm.... no they can't. Look up "vasectomy" please.
I'm all for abortion but don't pretend it's anything but a kill.
It's not. It's no more killing than contraception is. At 8 weeks, a fetus is the size of a raspberry. Will it become a baby? Yes.
Is it "murder" for a man to masturbate? After all he is killing millions of potential babies? Nobody would think that though. And yet we are talking about a bunch of cells that could eventually become babies, just like a 6 weeks fetus.
What kind of job are you getting that this isn't covered in there?
That's incredibly naive. You should look things up before you make assumptions. I work in fine dining and I can tell you that it's an industry where a very low percentage of employees are getting health insurance from their employers, despite working long hours and dangerous jobs. And it's just one example. Less than 20% of people working in restaurants in the US are receiving health benefits. And of the 50% or so who are receiving benefits in other sectors, they have to remain working to get continued benefits so no, it's not easy peasy.
The numbers for this are small
You were saying it was safe and easy. I was saying it's not as safe and easy as a vasectomy.
The fact of the matter is you're trying to push male vasectomy because "w-well it's reversible" like you can just get a vasectomy one day and the next decide you don't like it adn reverse it. Which is not possible.
In 24 hours, no. But it's fully reversible. So a single guy can get a vasectomy and then reverse it when he decides to have kids. Something women cannot do after getting sterilized. And I'm not trying to push anything. I'm just saying that if men are so concerned about those murderous women killing babies by the millions, they can still do something about it... by themselves, to themselves, instead of imposing their views on women.
Yes there will still be a 1% chance of pregnancy but that doesn't mean you shouldn't use birth control methods.
Nobody is saying you shouldn't. And you are assuming that women who have to get an abortion are just running around naked and without contraception screwing 20 guys a week and getting rid of babies like serial killers. How do you know how many of them actually used contraception?
And again you are only referring to women who don't want to go through their pregnancy. Abortion also concerns millions of women every year who are trying to actually have a child and would rather keep their pregnancy but are unable to for medical reasons. But that doesn't fit the "women are baby killers" narrative.
Comment has been collapsed.
lol "girls" can get a vasectomy? Hm.... no they can't. Look up "vasectomy" please.
holy shit he didn't specifically say sterilization fucking go get him
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/female-sterilisation/
the point still stands
It's not. It's no more killing than contraception is At 8 weeks, a fetus is the size of a raspberry. Will it become a baby? Yes.
"you are not killing a baby you're just killing something that'll eventually be a baby"
Is it "murder" for a man to masturbate? After all he is killing millions of potential babies? Nobody would think that though. And yet we are talking about a bunch of cells that could eventually become babies, just like a 6 weeks fetus.
Yes he is killing 'millions' of 'potential' babies except in this case there was never any guarantee any of the spermatozoids would even impregnate a woman and so you can still make a case for it but a fetus has very little chance to not eventually form into a baby unless there is a serious problem with the mother or there's outside forces preventing it to be. Yes there are exceptional cases where fetuses end up dead anyway but they are not the norm and I don't feel like going through every single case ever recorded.
That's incredibly naive. You should look things up before you make assumptions. I work in fine dining and I can tell you that it's an industry where a very low percentage of employees are getting health insurance from their employers, despite working long hours and dangerous jobs. And it's just one example. Less than 20% of people working in restaurants in the US are receiving health benefits. And of the 50% or so who are receiving benefits in other sectors, they have to remain working to get continued benefits so no, it's not easy peasy.
Okay well this is clearly an issue within these professional fields and healthcare should be provided for them. No secret that working conditions in the US are awful but that is a different issue entirely.
You were saying it was safe and easy. I was saying it's not as safe and easy as a vasectomy.
I was saying it was safer and easier which it is considering you're asking multiple potential male partners to get a vasectomy as oppossed to just fucking using any form of birth control that can apply to either both parties or just the girl and guess who gets pregnant? a girl can have multiple partners that can impregnate her and if she doesn't want to have a child is it easier and safer to ask her to use birth control or is it easier and safer to ask more than one partner (which most people have) to have a vasectomy? reminder we're talking about abortion here which men can't have in the first place
In 24 hours, no. But it's fully reversible. So a single guy can get a vasectomy and then reverse it when he decides to have kids. something women cannot do after getting sterilized.
hmm looks like there is a solution here for women who don't want to have kids, even for women who aren't sure. i'll give you a hint it starts with "birth" and ends with "control". if men dont want to impregnate women yeah thats fine you can get a vasectomy but we're talking here about women who don't want to have kids not men
And I'm not trying to push anything. I'm just saying that if men are so concerned about those murderous women killing babies by the millions, they can still do something about it... by themselves, to themselves, instead of imposing their views on women.
I'm just saying that if women are so concerned about those awful men not allowing them to kill babies by the millions, they can still do something about it... by themselves, to themselves, instead of imposing their views on men.
And you are assuming that women who have to get an abortion are just running around naked and without contraception screwing 20 guys a week and getting rid of babies like serial killers. How do you know how many of them actually used contraception?
well how the fuck else are they needing to abort dawg I've been married for close to 2 years now and my wife has never needed an abortion nor has any of my previous partners is it really that hard to just not have unprotected sex every other day? what do all condoms just break now or something?
And again you are only referring to women who don't want to go through their pregnancy.
well yes who else is going to abort?
Abortion also concerns millions of women every year who are trying to actually have a child and would rather keep their pregnancy but are unable to for medical reasons.
you know full well in these cases abortions are justified and not outlawed so what?
But that doesn't fit the "women are baby killers" narrative.
something no one has even brought up in this thread before in fact I've even said abortion is fine so I don't even know where you're going with this other than "boo hoo women oppressed"
Comment has been collapsed.
not "babies". clumps of cells usually. a fetus other times. no "babies" are aborted
women should have the right to do whatever they want with their body, since it is their body.
Comment has been collapsed.
Technically speaking - foetus is not their body. It has different DNA. Not that I'm against killing babies.
also you are "clump of cells" as well
Just call things by their name and stop with hipocrisy like: it will be human being when it's few days older or "it's womens body" xD
Comment has been collapsed.
you are totally wrong.
a clump of cells or fetus cannot live outside the a womans body. it is not a baby.
a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with the clump of cells that cannot live outside her body.
no one has the right to force anyone to continue a pregnancy. there is no rational reason to force anyone to
Bible advocates abortion.
Bible also gives no value to a baby less than a month old. So if you killed someone else's baby that was 2 week old, you wouldn't have to pay anything. And one month to five years only 5 shekels for boy, 3 shekels for girl.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bible advocates abortion
True. God aborted his son 30 years after birth after all. Seriously. I dont give a fuck. You try to use religious argument in discussion with atheist/nihilist.
a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with the clump of cells that cannot live outside her body.
Will fix that for you:
a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with the clump of cells foetus that cannot live outside her body.
You are clump of cells as well and your life is worth as much as that unborn clump of cells. Nothing. I don't care if woman kills her unborn clump of cells or not. I just want you all to stop that dehumanizing thing. Its like war this way. Pretending that your enemy is not human so you wont have regrets after killing it.
Got better idea! Call that clump of cells nazi! Or call it orc. Whatever works to sooth your mind.
Comment has been collapsed.
The Bible doesn't mention test-tube babies, but I think it's an amazing thing, so?
Looks like I don't fully agree with what's written in the Bible (especially if it's in the Old Testament), whoopsie :D
Excuse me, but you don't appear like someone to me either who lives according to what Bible say (you may still refer to it of course).
Comment has been collapsed.
Cool cool, so what is the exact moment when it should not be okay to have an abortion?
And why is it ok at that time.
Comment has been collapsed.
By inceptions the cells have a different DNA that has all the distinct genes of the new person like personality, hair color etc.
But that is too much logic for many.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not really, practically not their body from the moment of conception.
We can argue about the time when the fetus begins to resemble a human being, but this "part of their body" is a failed arguement from the "woke" side.
Comment has been collapsed.
this is like saying you cannot blow your nose because those cells you are ejecting from your body are not part of your body.
you are misinformed.
woke is just a dumb thing conservatives say when they know they are wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
No matter how hard you blow your nose, that's not a way to reproduce. Your example is plain bad :)
Comment has been collapsed.
woke is just a dumb thing conservatives say when they know they are wrong.
Actually, "woke" is a Newspeak meliorative created by the leftists to pretend they're superior because the non-leftists are asleep.
But yeah, it is a dumb word indeed.
Comment has been collapsed.
What you ejecting when blowing your nose has the exact DNA as you because it is secretion from your body.
The fetus is not the same DNA from day 0.
If that was the case, a woman wouldn't need DNA from the father or the father need a woman, we would divide ourselvse.
Comment has been collapsed.
We are a ruthless species; we torture and kill animals in the billions, we torture, rape, and kill each other on a daily basis. We could solve 80% of our problems (homelessness, poverty, hunger) if we try, but we just don't care enough.
So what's the issue with preventing decades of suffering by aborting an embryo?
You would rather add to that suffering?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I myself (and the circle of my friends) don't partake in such "activities" (true I'm not a vegetarian, but I try to eat as little meat as possible), so please allow me to condemn the killing of unborn children as well.
Thank you for your understanding.
Comment has been collapsed.
not an "unborn child" there is no killing.
you are super misinformed
Comment has been collapsed.
They ARE unborn children. Just like you have been for exactly 9 months.
Thankfully your mum was not "super misinformed" ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
so please allow me to condemn the killing of unborn children as well.
You are free to condemn it. But do you have practical solutions for pregnancies from rape and incest? From pregnancies in low income families, for homeless people, for underage people. I just hope your condemnation (and others) doesn't come from yet another polar opposite of "You can either do everything or can't do anything"... Its not simply black and white issue after all.
If abortion would be banned completely it just feeds many other problems you probably fight to solve - abandoned and mistreated children for one.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not throwing in my towel for either of the sides, just don't forget opposite side from you also have valid arguments that have to be addressed if you want civil discussion.
Comment has been collapsed.
Rape, incest or threatened pregnancy? About 5% of the cases.
We are talking about the other 95% here (at least I was and I'm pretty sure the guy in the OC was as well).
Comment has been collapsed.
It's times like these that I find it's better to find people more passionate about the topic than I am. As a guy, and as a single guy especially, I don't feel I'm informed enough (or invested enough) on the topic to make a call. My sister is (of course) a girl and is supportive of abortion and reproductive rights. In these sorts of matters, I find it wisest to just stick to her position. Also, women probably know more about this topic than anybody else and they're usually pretty pro-abortion.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not a baby yet, obviously nobody here would advocate killing babies. And an incubator's rights don't matter, right. Let's ruin a life of a teenage girl who didn't know anything about contraception because adults didn't bother to educate her. Who cares about a 40-year-old woman with 4 kids who got pregnant by an accident (because that happens). And sure, let's make a rape victim give birth as well. Let's also make a depressed woman with 2 tiny kids (2,5 and 1 year old), a husband she doesn't love and nasty somatic health issues keep the third pregnancy (I'm talking about a close relative). And so on, and so forth. But you just don't care about all this, right? A fetus matters, a woman that already exists does not.
Also, let me guess, you are a man, right? I just love it when men think it's ok to dictate what we should do with our bodies.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nah, accidents don't happen.
- Some "rational" person in response on my comment.
Also just like some one else in this thread said: Isn't it odd how "pro-life" say how much they care about a fetus, but when it actually is born not a single grain of that care is left to be found?
Comment has been collapsed.
No contraception means are 100% effective. The only guaranteed way not to get pregnant is not to have sex.
And yes, I've also been wondering about them being completely indifferent to unwanted, unhappy children.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't agree with the first part of my comment either, was just sarcastically quoting someone.
Not just unhappy or unwanted children either. How about those who suffer from (mental) disabilities? If they're lucky it's just indifference, otherwise they're getting shafted for the lack of free/basic healthcare (something a big chunk from the "pro-life" crowd is also against). If their country can even provide the necessary healthcare in the first place.
Comment has been collapsed.
what is insane is if you inform conservatives that one of their leaders forced their wife/girlfriend/mistress to have abortion or paid for an abortion, they do not care. they happily support and vote for them.
SMH
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, the hypocrisy is hilariously sad.
Videos about children of single-parents being 80% of the prison population get thousands of likes and racist comments from conservatives.
And then they want to add to that problem by stopping abortions...?
Help people that decided not to have an abortion? "Nah, screw them!"
Comment has been collapsed.
I am not saying I am 100% for abortion, but I mean getting a kid you don't want won't add to its happiness either, do you think it's fun for a kid to live with people who never wanted you since high chance you will notice it, or maybe can't afford to feed you or whatever?
So yeah, if the suffering can end when it's still an embryo, then there are cases where that is the best option.
Comment has been collapsed.
Let me be ironic here,
if you dont want a kid, use condoms, or better even: dont have sex.
,
you said: "if the suffering.........." whos suffering? yours or the kid's? i mean, what does that little person do to you to kill him? becouse you're suffering? really?
how can you size the happiness of a kid? just curius...
edit: dont get me wrong, my english Is basic, but from what I understand of what you write, I just want to share my opinion, its nothing against you, or your opinion, of course.
Comment has been collapsed.
With suffering I mean if for example a kid gets born to parents who don't want them since I know how horrible it is to have a parent who wish you were never born, so am talking about the suffering of a kid, not of the parents (no clue how much an embryo would 'suffer' when it gets removed so can't say anything about that).
But I do agree, if you don't want children, use protection and yes condoms can break and stuff can go wrong but still it's there for a reason so either use it or have a chance to face the consequences. But what about for example people who get raped? What do they do if they are forced to keep their child which they never wanted nor could have stopped it? There is always a grey area with that stuff and I do agree that if you can't afford or don't want a child, don't get one but guess it's never that easy since it does keep happening that people get unwanted kids...
Comment has been collapsed.
i understand the "unwanted kid", many young people think that the fact that they are parents in a young state of their lives brings them "conplications", but that's about responsabilities, than other things.
if a condom broke, its still your responsability the pregnant woman.
in contrast, poor people have kids one after another, they dont have an economic income to rise those kids with everything they need, still those are the less people that make abortions,
rape, its a very specific case, and judges allow abortions in that cases, not always, but happends, there Is a trial for that, where somebody Is guilty of rape a woman, we are not talking about "free rights for woman" here. people tend to use this as an escuse, when there are already laws about this specific case.
i know women that have aborted, in my experience with this girls, years after, they blame themself for what they have done. its not a "all women", im talking about the ones I meet.
in my country, this subject have become a political fight, where the "new" law that gives permition to woman to abort, comes from a little and specific group of people under the flag of a very little group of politicians.
this law have a lot of grey issues, that dosnt feat for me, in a family rape, the girld can abort, without any guilty raper, becouse its what they are, and the law, being so fragile and generic, its allowing crimes.... my country suck for a lot of thing, but this one its a very ilogical one.
about parents that doesnt wants their kid, that its most a psicological problem of them, perfect parents doesnt exist, bad parents with emotional problems, inmatures, etc, are the most common, but thats its not an escuse to terminate the life of another person.
here, people are talking about "the woman right" over hers own bodies, there are a lot of opinions about that, globaly speaking, about when we, as a society, consider that one Is a person, a person that have rights, a person who is killed if you make an abort.
i tend to try to understand others opinions, after all, its the law the one that we have to obey, liked it or not.
for my personal opinion, a person its have a soul since the conception, from the very begining, and its have rights as a civil person under the law in the same moment, but that Is my opinion, I respect others.
edit: its take me a lot of time to write this in english, sorry about all mistakes, hope you understand my point.
Comment has been collapsed.
"your responsability the pregnant woman"
Because women get pregnant all by themselves 🙄
Comment has been collapsed.
i mean, its a responsability of both, the woman and the man. wanted to say that the man have a responsability too, and that dosnt mean, that he can "desapear" a let the woman by herself, with the consecuences.
at the same time, both have rights, for me, a man have the right to stop, nowadays: a legal abortion, its his son/daughter too, after all.
i know my english Is not a good one, sorry about that.
edit: i know im getting myself in a sea storm.... and this topic have a lot of diferent opinions.... I respect all of them, but I live with my own one, and wont change that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Cancel culture is of course cancer. Some of these jokes of people actually attack people from history who happened to have period appropriate opinions.. So in general context I would agree that this is form of social terrorism, bullying and mobbing. Not to mention overall arrogance towards history and facts.
As for Gibson - of course he is an ass. No arguments there. And that is without even touching the specific topic he had been "cancelled" over. Some people at high positions / in politics should realize they are public figures and their opinions have way more weight then your regular joe on the street. AND that they represent the company / country / party they are part of. If you are a CEO of a company, you can't really separate personal space from business space. They will be intertwined and your opinion will be associated with that of a company.
So I've seen this discussion pop up previously on how its supposedly stupid to fire someone over comments they made in their free time - but I think it is very logical that the company for example won't want to be associated with a person who said something controversial, even if at personal level. Maybe some low-level worker would get away with their opinions, but even if cashier goes on to rant about racist, misogynistic or in general offensive and sensitive topics they will be sacked for good. And good riddance with them.
So in this sense Gibson is right IMO to shit on cancel culture, but not for it to be the reason he lost CEO title.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well it's unclear whether he truly lost his job because of his opinion, or how big part it has played. If you look at his tweet a year ago, you can see the pure bred cancel culture addicts condemning him. Yes, these are the same people who also wanted to cut their wrists open when Elon Musk announced that he would (and he did) unsuspend Donald Trump's account.
Today's conservatives are more liberal, than these people :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, sure. First of all 'cancel culture' is nothing new and not inherently leftist. People have been cancelled for unpopular opinions, wrong religion, wrong skin colour and a plethora of other things all through history. And not just 'losing their public facing job' cancelled but up to violently killed.
Today's conservatives are more liberal, than these people :D
Plenty of folks whose various rights were taken away / curtailed by conservative regimes would strongly disagree with that.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's also the idea of responsibility (as Pete Parker's uncle used to say) — if you obtained some influence, then you may want to use it for good.
Like Hollywood stars, who mostly only have a nice face, good connections, and know how to say lines that somebody else wrote for them (some of them — for ridiculously high salaries), are applauded when they speak up — using their (ill-, well-, or luck-gained) popularity to attempt improve the society, in a way that the said person is passionate about.
Scratch that. None of such noble bravery is allowed if what you say is un-wokeceptable. #howdareyou
Comment has been collapsed.
He wanted to "cancel" women's rights. And he has the guts to blame cancel culture.
There is no such thing as cancel culture. People are free to boycott shitty people for their actions.
Comment has been collapsed.
Cancelled man silenced by the left.
Also gets to go onto Tucker Carlson Today and moan about how actions have consequences and his life got "destroyed" by the marketplace of ideas.
Also the quotes are wild: "I shared something with my wife, I'll tell you what I said to her. I said, I just want to die. Because I don't want to live in a world that's this unjust." UNJUST he said. Fuck you, you privileged cunt.
Comment has been collapsed.
lol that's actually funny! He was "silenced" but he can go to a TV show
Comment has been collapsed.
It's weird how being 'silenced' and 'cancelled' tends to miraculously coincide with their opinions and voice having much greater reach, and rejuvinating their career / prospects.
Comment has been collapsed.
Since when is killing "women's rights"? That sounds awfully disciminatory.
Comment has been collapsed.
Since bodily autonomy was recognised as a basic human right.
If you can invent the technology to keep a 6-week old fetus alive outside of the woman's womb, and are willing to personally support this "life form" until it fully develops, plus another 18 years, then by all means you can advocate for banning abortion. Until then, the principal of bodily autonomy - assuming you believe in such a thing - grants the woman the right to remove this dependent life form (which in any other context would be called a 'parasite') from her body, and since that technology doesn't exist the most practical and ethical thing to do is to destroy those cells the same way we destroy cells to remove cancer.
And if you don't support bodily autonomy, at least not when another life is involved, presumably you recognise that a born human has far more of a claim to personhood than a fetus, so I hope you enjoy mandatory blood donations and kidney lotteries. Because I'm sure you wouldn't be one of those hypocrites who stops caring once the baby is born.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are assuming that all anti-abortionists automatically do not care about adults, only about babies and you build your entire reasoning upon this foundation.
Wrong.
And of course women have "bodily autonomy", but I think you've got it all wrong: they can choose who they have sex with and they can use a wide variety of contraceptives. Abortion is NOT one of these methods.
Comment has been collapsed.
They can choose who they have sex with, but they don't always get to.
They and their (consenting) partners can indeed use a wide variety of contraceptives, but even the best measures are not a guarantee.
It doesn't matter that abortion is not a common contraceptive, that's not what is being discussed, and the oft revisited implication that getting an abortion is some casual thing says something about the lack of full lucidity in play here.
Abortion is a very emotive subject, and does indeed have questions of morality intricately tied into it, but for all the gray areas we explore, the ultimate underpinning question is one of sovereignty to ones own body. it is both a subject with a very stark and obvious endgame that has to be tackled no matter the sub-aspects we try to address on the way there. The end answer a person reaches is almost always going to be very black and white, even if the path they took to reach that conclusion had to weave around a lot of very difficult contributing factors.
Yet I hold that until a sufficiently compelling counter can be fully lodged, we have to err on the side of caution, that the government (a large body subject to lobbying / financial interference, personal interests and corruption) should not be the final say above the literal owner of the body. No, this is not a perfect solution. Yes, it's a subject worth delving into, and a very worthy subject of medical research so that we may hopefully find an alternative to abortion that does not treat the body as a siezed property, but if an unborn, unconscious proto-human is to be consindered a person, then it stands to reason that the conscious, fully-formed, sapient, grown human that carries the fetus should not be treated as livestock for the satisfaction of others meddling even moreso.
Comment has been collapsed.
"You are assuming that all anti-abortionists automatically do not care about adults"
I'm not and my argument didn't rely on that, but let's not pretend there isn't a correlation between those who are against abortion and those who are against affordable healthcare, welfare, equality, etc.
"only about babies and you build your entire reasoning upon this foundation."
There couldn't be a better demonstration that you didn't understand what I said. Because I made it quite clear that I don't think anti-abortionists care even about babies (as in, post-birth humans). At best you could say they only care about fetuses up until the point they are born, so much so that they wish to confer upon them special rights (to use the mother's body for their own medical benefit, a right that we don't even give born humans); but I don't think even that is true. I think they only pretend to care about fetuses because they are a convenient means to achieve political goals which includes the subjugation of women.
Or as Pastor David Barnhart put it better:
"'The unborn' are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."
"And of course women have "bodily autonomy""
"Bodily autonomy up until the arbitrary point that I decide they should no longer have it" isn't bodily autonomy.
"but I think you've got it all wrong: they can choose who they have sex with and they can use a wide variety of contraceptives. Abortion is NOT one of these methods."
It is, you just don't like it for some reason. Also abortion, far from being "just a contraceptive" (which isn't really how it's used), is also a medical procedure that is often necessary to prevent further harm including death. The fact that you believe abortion is just something women do for fun so they can go around fucking guys without protection on a weekend is absurd. Stop using pregnancy as a punishment for female promiscuity, it's disgusting.
Comment has been collapsed.
Equality? Like providing everyone the same chance to live, to be born? Funny that you put it that way.
I can only speak for myself (and for my likeminded fellow anti-abortionists) - I care equally about others as well. But to not give someone the chance to live, doesn't sound like a liberal approach to me.
"Bodily autonomy up until the arbitrary point that I decide they should no longer have it" isn't bodily autonomy."
Yes, because that no longer falls under that category - there is another life at stake. And if a mother kills her child - even if they were a part of her at some point - is still a punishable act, a crime.
"a medical procedure that is often necessary to prevent further harm including death"
Yes and in the case of rape victims it's totally understandable, but that's like about 5% of the cases we are talking about. The other 95% are the cases I mentioned and I am against.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Equality? Like providing everyone the same chance to live, to be born? Funny that you put it that way."
Not really. A baby removed from the womb has just as much chance to live as any other baby removed from the womb. I mean if you just want to interpret "equality" in the stupidest way possible, what you should really be advocating for is that any woman who is denied an abortion, the male responsible for the pregnancy should be forced to put their life and career on hold for at least a year, after which they may be killed or permanently disfigured, or given depression, or....See, I can do reductio ad absurdum too!
" But to not give someone the chance to live, doesn't sound like a liberal approach to me."
Then you don't understand liberal ideology. The fetus should not be granted more rights than then pregnant woman. Like I said, if you care so much about a "potential human", then by all means work on finding a way to extract a fetus from the mother that doesn't necessitate killing it. Until then, your argument is invalid. But you people clearly won't be happy until a menstruating woman is charged with murder. And I bet males won't have any legal problems regularly spilling thousands of potential babies into tissues, not giving them a chance to live. Funny how it works out that it's never the male's problem, it's almost as if the whole anti-abortion thing is founded on a culture of misogyny.
"Yes, because that no longer falls under that category - there is another life at stake. And if a mother kills her child - even if they were a part of her at some point - is still a punishable act, a crime."
There is another life at stake even after the baby is born. And yet, we don't force parents to donate blood or organs to save their child, even if they would die otherwise. That is true medical bodily autonomy. We don't even remove the organs of dying/dead people to save up to 8 other lives without the informed consent of themselves and/or their relatives! Why do you think fetuses and corpses should have more rights than actual living, legally recognised people?
I think the problem is maybe you don't understand, scientifically, medically, what an abortion actually is. The fact you keep likening it to "killing babies" is a dead giveaway. Maybe do some actual research so you can come to the debate better equipped, because it's not my job to educate the ignorant. You seem to think this argument is about "the baby is part of the mother's body, therefore she has a right to kill it". That isn't the case at all. The actual argument is, there is an independent being - often nothing more than a clump of cells that might one day become a baby - called a fetus attached to this woman, and she doesn't want it there, and it is her human right to have it removed. And the safest, most ethical way to do so is to terminate the life of this fetus. Some people might think this fetus has a right to grow into a baby and that such a termination of life is unfortunate, but since the only other option with current technology is to force the unwanted (and in many cases unviable) pregnancy to continue, which violates the woman's rights and puts undue harm upon her, this is the most ethical option.
And the sadder thing is that often anti-abortion legislation often punishes women even for unintended terminations of pregnancy (we are talking things like miscarriage here). That's not by accident due to some legislator accidentally writing a law wrong. Now that doesn't necessarily mean I think you personally advocate for that, but you should know the kind of shitty company you keep with your views, and whether your beliefs are sound given the true intentions of such ideology has been betrayed.
"Yes and in the case of rape victims it's totally understandable, but that's like about 5% of the cases we are talking about. The other 95% are the cases I mentioned and I am against."
I have no fucking idea what you're talking about here. I mentioned the health risk of pregnancy, and you went off about rape. You do understand that a pregnant women's health/life can be at risk regardless of whether or not the fetus was conceived via consent, right? If you actually knew even the most basic medical science about pregnancy, you would know that in fact ALL pregnancies carry a significant risk (health, financial and otherwise).
But the whole point is that what percentage of abortions are due to rape is not relevant. It is immoral to force people to surrender their medical bodily autonomy to another being regardless of what stage of development it is at or at what point we consider it a person. Consent to sex is not consent to get pregnant and have a baby. Treating pregnancy like a punishment for women having sex is sick. What you have to understand is that to those who support the right to abortion, your argument is no different from saying hospitals should only treat car crash victims if they were forced into the car against their will. After all if they got into the car willingly, they knew there was a non-zero chance of having an accident. If they refused to take precautions like installing airbags or wearing a helmet, or those protections didn't work, then too bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
"the male responsible for the pregnancy should be forced to put their life and career on hold for at least a year"
Well I don't wish to startle you, but I agree with the idea of holding a man (the man) also responsible in an abortion, but it is the woman's/mother's decision that counts in the end. Most of these abortions involve young, irresponsible people, so the mentioning of "career" I would find rather amusing, were it not a serious topic.
"Then you don't understand liberal ideology"
I studied politology and I do understand CLASSIC liberalism. What we have today, this sometimes fascistoid "wokeism" is a truly scary form of left-wing politcs and has very little to do with actual liberalism. Equal rights mean that it's not just the exclusive right of a(n irresponsible) woman (and man), but something that is frowned upon by decent members of the society and something that should be punishable. Just like when you decide to rob someone, you'll have to take that into account, that the police is going to come after you... it has to have a retentive effect on the perpetrator.
We have a new bill in Hungary, that before an abortion a woman/mother is FORCED to listen to the baby's heartbeat. She can still have an abortion afterwards, but for people like you, it is a perfect step to introduce that that "clump of cells" already DOES HAVE heartbeats, therefore your whole arguement is ruined. This law not only saves lives, but also encourages responsibility.
"I have no fucking idea what you're talking about here"
Let me explain it to you again, slowly: health issues (when the mother's life is in danger because of her pregnancy) + (PLUS) rape cases (where a woman is an unwilling participant of a sexual act and has been impregnated against her will) COMBINED make up about (less in reality) 5 (FIVE) % (PERCENT) of abortions (these are allowed EVERYWHERE, countries with super strict abortion laws included). And I'm sure we were talking about the OTHER 95% of the cases here, whereas some people think that abortion is just an extended method of contraception.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Most of these abortions involve young, irresponsible people"
[Citation needed]
Sorry, but this narrative you keep trying to push that abortions almost only ever happen because of silly little girls going around fucking guys with reckless abandon is disgusting.
Also I love the fact that this just disproves your own argument. Let's see, these irresponsible little girls are getting themselves knocked up, they can't be trusted to make a serious medical decision like having an abortion. Oh but they can fucking be responsible for growing a fetus inside them for 9 months, and then held socially, legally and financially responsible for a whole other human for 18+ years? LOL you idiot.
"so the mentioning of "career" I would find rather amusing, were it not a serious topic."
Yeah, I bet this whole thing is fucking joke to you. Why else would you use such dumb arguments to justify the enslavement of women?
What, can "young, irresponsible people" not have careers? Can they not be attending school in the hopes of having one? Or are careers reserved only for responsible mature adults who only surrender their virginity once their fathers have passed ownership of their daughter to another man under the watchful eye of God. Hmm let me guess where you lie on this...
"What we have today, this sometimes fascistoid "wokeism""
Yeah sorry, you gave it away the second you mentioned "wokeism". Stop pretending to know shit about politics, the University of Fox News isn't qualified..
"She can still have an abortion afterwards, but for people like you, it is a perfect step to introduce that that "clump of cells" already DOES HAVE heartbeats, therefore your whole arguement is ruined. "
LOL are you stupid? Oh noes my whole argument is ruined! Legislation is being put into place to still "allows" abortions but trick the mother into having second thoughts, as if a fucking ABORTION wasn't a difficult enough decision already (I know, I know, when people like you believe an abortion is just a fun thing to do on a lazy afternoon, I'm sure it makes perfect sense). Also though the whole "heartbeat" thing? Yep, pseudo-science bullshit, no surprise there.
" This law not only saves lives, but also encourages responsibility."
It doesn't save lives, it delays the procedure and places women in greater medical jeopardy. It's a deliberate ploy to let the fetus stay live longer so then you fuckers have more ammunition to argue about how developmentally-advanced these babies are that are getting killed. Because funnily enough you don't have a whole lot of people on your side when you try to tell them a clump of cells that is indistinguishable from a fucking dolphin fetus is actually a living human baby and should be protected at all cost even if it kills the mother. And again, the mechanisms around abortion - a serious medical procedure - already encourage responsibility. Doctors are equipped to advise their patients. They answer to medical boards. At no point does the government need to get involved in medical decisions. The whole thing is as fucking stupid as forcing cancer patients to look at their cancer cells under a microscope and making sure they are definitely 100% absolutely certain they want to kill this living organism. Or if you're in an accident and need a leg amputated to save your life; that is between you and your doctor. A politician has no fucking business being in the room trying to convince you otherwise, or teaching propaganda about how shitty your life will be without a leg. Yet that's exactly the bullshit you want for women who are already making the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy.
"Let me explain it to you again, slowly: health issues (when the mother's life is in danger because of her pregnancy) + (PLUS) rape cases (where a woman is an unwilling participant of a sexual act and has been impregnated against her will) COMBINED make up about (less in reality) 5 (FIVE) % (PERCENT) of abortions"
Oh good I'm glad you explained it slowly so you could do it properly this time, because that is absolutely not what you said before. But again, who fucking cares? I don't give a shit if "health issues" + "rape cases" are 0.000000001% of abortions. This whole tactic of yours is bullshit because yet again you're ignoring the fact that there is no such thing as a risk-free pregnancy. 100% of pregnancies put the mother's life in danger, amongst other consequences. If you can't understand that basic medical fact then you are not mentally equipped to partake in this discussion.
You can't force women to surrender their bodily autonomy to save another life, I don't care if the other "life" is a fetus, a born baby or a grown-ass adult. We don't even force corpses to donate organs, yet you just want to treat women like breeding livestock for your pleasure to score some political points. If you want to cry about the fact it inevitably means that other life will die then you are free to do so, but people (and non-people) dying is an inevitable consequence of bodily autonomy. Go start a funeral business for six-week-old clumps of cells if you care so much, and feel free to never get an abortion yourself even if it would destroy you medically or financially; just stop trying to force your idiotic views on other people.
"And I'm sure we were talking about the OTHER 95% of the cases here"
No, we weren't. We were talking about abortion as a whole. You want the government to dictate when it should and should not be permitted, and the circumstances under which it can be done, if ever (including dumb shit like this "heartbeat" thing which are thinly-veiled attempts to emotionally manipulate and torture the woman even further; funny how the father isn't forced to listen to the heartbeat! What happened to "I agree with the idea of holding a man (the man) also responsible in an abortion", don't tell me you were shock full of shit). I want medical decisions to be made by medical experts, the same as we do for any other medical decision. (Side note: way to use a literal fascist regime in your argument, I don't think you could show how shitty your beliefs are even if you tried!)
"whereas some people think that abortion is just an extended method of contraception."
See, when you say dumb shit like this, it really makes clear your true intentions. Ok, so what if abortion is "just an extended method of contraception" (it isn't)? What if the woman was stupid and reckless and had every opportunity to not get pregnant? So what? What does that fundamentally change? I want women to have control over their bodies. The whole crux of your argument is to use pregnancy as a punishment for women having sex, particularly out of wedlock. It's based in outdated cultural and religious views about women being the property of men. You already have your conclusion, now you're just working backwards to fill in the narrative. What you're doing is as clear as day. It's fucking sick, and you are a disgusting person, hence I see no need to continue the discussion. I think women should have human rights, you don't, go fuck yourself..
Comment has been collapsed.
Lol. So basically you don't care about anything, the only thing your mind is centered around is that fetuses are not babies (and they'll never be apparently) and they need to be carved out, because this is women's right.
Thank God, your Mom wasn't this enlightened, because otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Have a nice day.
Comment has been collapsed.
This topic should be here:
https://www.steamgifts.com/discussions/off-topic
Definitely not gaming related.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes but the topic is not about gaming. There are many sites on the Internet to talk about politics and ideology, let's keep this site clean or at least post each topic in the corresponding place.
Many people have the off-topic section hidden to avoid this kind of topics.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can edit the discussion and change the category to "Off-Topic" to move the thread. It is at the top right corner.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow, witnessing a civil and articulate comment chain where an objection was brought up without unnecessary sniping? On a gaming forum no less? Feels like I should be checking something off on a rare finds bingo card.
This shouldn't be cause for celebration but just getting to see an adult exchange without the default social media infused sneer feels like a breathmint to my brain.
Comment has been collapsed.
Glad this moron isn't with Tripwire anymore, maybe now their games see some improvement.
Some people just need to learn the hard way that freedom of speech not only goes both ways but also isn't free of consequences.
Comment has been collapsed.
Some people just need to learn the hard way that freedom of speech not only goes both ways but also isn't free of consequences.
Okay, so how about having consequences for shagging like a rabbit? Babies don't pop up inside people by accident, you know
Comment has been collapsed.
What are you, eight? Women that ask for abortion rights are not simply looking for a way to ensure mindless sex. Even if somebody wanted to get it raw there's much easier to obtain and cheaper options, like the day-after pill.
Some dudes here thinking people consider an abortion just another contraceptive method, without understanding why do they resort to abortion vs. earlier methods, the loops (and cost) you gotta go to get one, or what does it entail to a woman's body.
To anybody that thinks that an abortion is a riskless and consequence-free way to never have kids, please go and educate yourselves on the topic. It is a last resort measure and definitely not about "killing babies", it's about ensuring that a woman (and possibly the couple) can continue their lives without the economic, physical and mental toll of an unwanted pregnancy and later infant.
Comment has been collapsed.
So here you are trying to justify censorship just because it's something you don't agree with.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is slut shaming
Okay.
you shouldn't punish someone for merely having sex
Sorry, next time I do the deed unprotected I'll make sure to tell my semen to not impregnate my partner.
I will not however see chodes blaming people for having sex with undesired outcomes, mistakes do and will continue to happen.
Don't sleep around with everyone in town and this won't happen; AND you'll avoid slut shaming too!
There's enough birth control methods nowadays that you can avoid getting pregnant in the first place if you really can't stop yourself from having sex that much.
Abortion as preconceptive is a terrible idea, but actions have consequences. Just like Gibson got fired for stating his opinion, if you have unprotected sex you'll get pregnant.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can't imagine living this binary is very pleasant
I wouldn't know about unpleasantries I don't spend my time making political threads on a gaming forum
Gibson was fired now?
Sorry he 'stepped down'. semantics really as the end result is the same.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes of course freedom of speech does imply freedom of consequences what the fuck? Without freedom of consequences people can't have freedom of speech as they're too afraid to speak out in the first place. "Sorry your opinion doesn't align with mine so you can kiss your job goodbye" alright man
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess you need a refresher on what freedom of speech actually is.
Freedom of speech means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government
It absolutely doesn't limit the freedom of other people to express their opinions back at you, backlash and act upon it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know what dictionary you got that from, but you should get a new one. This one just copy/pasted the 1st amendment, which is a subset and not the whole thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
I never stated you can't be criticized for your opinions that is exactly what freedom of speech entails. But there's a difference between criticizing or replying to someone and organizing a hate mob to make sure they get fired.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just love seeing dumb bros facing the consequences of their actions for the first time.
Comment has been collapsed.
My opinion in the matter is simple.
Freedom to speak, freedom to write, freedom to read, freedom to own material that you believe is worth defending means you're going to have to stand up for stuff you don't believe is worth defending, even stuff you find actively distasteful.
Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost
Comment has been collapsed.
Think it's a bit too late for this in the current sociocultural environment modern social media has cultivated. if this trend continues, when the useful idiots stop being useful they'll come after them and they'll realize they didn't care about any of them at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence, and while it's perfectly okay for anyone to say whatever it is that they want. It's called a consequence. If any company decided to say that the Nazi's were right, and didn't go far in enough, sure I believe they can say it, but why the fuck would I give them my money? Cancel Culture doesn't fucking exist, everyone has the right to their opinion and how they spend their money. People giving a company money is a privilege it's not an inalienable right. If I think that giving you money might lead to you giving money to causes I don't support, or that are actively harmful to me, then I've expressed my freedom of speech. I don't have to get on twitter, I don't have to yell and scream, I just decided you don't get my money, or my respect. Somehow conservatives have decided that this is problematic, and unfair if I do it to their guy.
Also no one is stopping him from speaking his mind. Like what everyone fails to understand is that the government can't censor you. They can't throw you in jail for whatever you say with certain exceptions, you can't exactly threaten someone and think that's going to fly. Thus implying freedom of speech isn't even absolute. Tripwire CEO said some shit, people didn't like it, he stepped down. He didn't have to step down he did because it looked bad for the brand, because it did. He is now on television whining about cancel culture, thus still repeating his asinine talking points, that at the end of the day don't affect him. Like I fail to see any real consequence other than he doesn't get to call himself CEO.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it
The first time I heard "freedom of consequences" was from a chinese person, probably paid to defend the CCP, a decade ago or so, that claimed that the Tianament protesters had the freedom of speech, they just didn't have the freedom of consequences. I guess the same could be said of every dictatorship. The number of people that support freedom of speech in western countries has deeply fallen in the last decade.
"Like I fail to see any real consequence other than he doesn't get to call himself CEO" There are many people that have lost their jobs and livehoods because of cancer culture. I don't know the guy, but if he still has money, good. But what if you don't have that much money, you say the wrong thing, the wrong joke, whatever, and the online harassment lasts years and years, chasing you from one place to the other? It has happened before, it's happening, and it will happen.
Comment has been collapsed.
Freedom of speech in the American context, and in most contexts means that the government can't censor you, that includes murdering you because of what you say. Nothing I said was inconsistent, China doesn't have freedom of speech because their government the Chinese government literally murdered it's citizens thus censoring them. Private citizens are free to do whatever they like in response to words.
If a man got on the street and said women belong in cages or we should be able to have sex with children (I'm using this as a point at how silly your argument about the CCP was and your stunning lack of understanding of the first amendment) You think that I still owe that man anything? That I should open my wallet and give him money? Because why? Should I not tell my friends, that hey maybe don't give your money to this guy because he believes and supports causes that are disgusting and I find morally objectionable? This is a consequence. If I attack that man, or kill him, that is murder and it is illegal. Hell even threatening to come to his house and do harm isn't protected speech and should be treated seriously. People don't owe you their hard earned cash that's what the free market is about, which conservatives love to bring up all the time and yet.
What happened: Man says something objectionable about abortion which where ever you stand on the issue is a polarizing issue, (I hope that isn't a controversial opinion) -> People (not the government) got upset with him. -> Man realizes that he offended a good segment of the population and decides to step away so his business is not affected because people vote with their wallets -> People forget about man -> Man pops up and talks about how he said something objectionable at a time when emotions were raw and people reasonably got upset -> Man fails to mention that he could have weathered the storm but instead of standing by his words and his company ran away -> Man then complains he's being censored as he complains on NATIONAL TELEVISION about what happened to him -> Man reminds people what a piece of shit he is -> Cycle goes on.
At no point was this man censored, the government isn't involved. At no point did he have to step down. For every person who believes they are pro-choice there are a bunch of men and women who think fetus, pivot and make games targeted at them and calling out the "woke mob". I mean dude can't even get the right-wing grift right unless this is him beginning to do that. If people threatened him, get the police involved and the people who did should be arrested, a consequence of their idiotic actions.
Comment has been collapsed.
"At no point was this man censored, the government isn't involved" I find fascinating that in today's world that companies and crowds can censor people with much, much more power than at any time in history, the only worry is if the goverment can or not censor
"Chinese government literally murdered it's citizens thus censoring them" True. There were consequences for their actions. And people are afraid of saying the wrong thing. Fear is the best weapon against freedom of speech.
I still wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it
Comment has been collapsed.
You know there was a saying that worked wonders, "If you don't have anything nice to say then don't say it." People need to learn to shut the fuck up and listen more. Private companies are not government entities, they have terms of services just like a contract. If you break that contract the consequence is you get kicked off. First amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nearly every Western country has some sort of freedom of expression and freedom of speech law, China does not. Saying that Twitter or Facebook is CCP China is a stretch, they are a private company. Your world won't end because you don't get to partake in it. Your life isn't over if you don't have Twitter. It is a privilege not an inalienable right to use their service. When a store goes no shirt no service, it's literally the same thing, you can't enter their store without a shirt. And what most people like yourself fail to understand is that this is a bloody business. Twitter before Elon decided that he was some sort of genius and got rid of most people who worked there, had massive advertisement campaigns from people like GM, ie, they get a ton of money from them. GM doesn't want to advertise it's cars next to ISIS videos of people being beheaded. Oh no GM doesn't want their brand being associated with ISIS. By your reasoning, GM should just give Twitter money anyway because to not do so is censorship. That's not how this works. Since Twitter wants GM's money they agree to get rid of ISIS, something I hope you don't have a problem about, but that is literally censoring ISIS'S free speech. Oh no someone is posting Child Porn, again by your definition free speech but maybe Disney doesn't want to advertise next to someone who is president of NAMBLA.
But if you want me to specifically answer your whole CCP and Tianament square thing, because you couldn't answer it properly. The chinese person was right, the consequence for their actions was death, because authoritarian governments aren't big on free speech. That word may bother you but it's literally what it is. A consequence. The people in Iran right now are protesting and trying to gain their freedoms, the government doesn't like it so it's arrested a shit ton of people and is executing and raping women and trying to break their fucking spirit. That being a consequence, doesn't mean it is justified or a proportional response. And that's the argument you should have made, it was a grossly unjustified response from the government and that's not what free speech means in America/west. You can criticize your government without fear of being murdered by them, or disappeared, or executed. You are allowed to peacefully gather, and as long as you remain peaceful and not disturbing the peace you can say your point go home and move on with your life. And that's a good thing. The fact that you can't argue your way out of a paper bag, and now have PTSD over the word consequences, is a you thing.
Again someone says something that person A doesn't like -> Person A then tells everyone not to buy their product or to ignore the crazy person shouting about abortion rights -> No on is dead. No one is in jail, people are free to do whatever they want. Again threatening someone is against the law, and is not protected speech people getting annoyed and calling you a piece of shit and telling their friends that you're a piece of shit is not illegal. It's not defamatory, it's literally how the free market works. If companies want to protect their revenue stream and they axe the moron who said all this dumb shit, while repping the company, America is mostly at-will, which means you can be fired for anything, and costing the company money for being a dumb fuck is usually grounds for dismissal.
This is true for any company. For all you Free Speech absolutists, go say a bunch of derogatory things while repping your company, say racist things. say sexually inappropriate things, I don't care, the point is your job will fire you. Like I know Europe likes to pretend that they're all enlightened with their hiring practices but the fact of the matter is if someone in Belgium decided to rep Nazi gear on their social media page while announcing that they work for X-company, they will be fired, they might have to jump through hoops to get there but they will be fired. These are fucking consequences. Working at a certain company is not a right it's a privilege. That is a consequence. No one has to like the consequence, but if you're fighting a dictatorship people are going to get killed. You keep fighting, until they kill all of you, or you overthrow them. Some things just have higher stakes than others.
This is literally how the world works. Saying that there should be no consequences shows a complete lack of understanding of how the world works and is at best juvenile as fuck.
Comment has been collapsed.
Again, I fall under the opinion of you're free to say whatever you want, and you're free to deal with the consequences of those actions. If someone is in the KKK go ahead and espouse those views, I support their right to say it, hell I'm even happy that they are saying it so I don't have to waste my time with that person and I can avoid that person.
Where I will get involved is if the government decided that the best place was prison or death for the guy in the KKK, at which point I would protest that. As long as the man isn't guilty of any crimes other than his terrible words and terrible ideas, he's just that a fucking moron who doesn't have the power compared to the government. So in cases of Iran, as they fight their oppressors, and they die for it. It is a consequence because they have no protection, their constitution, their government is perfectly fine killing it's citizens. They voted for it in their parliament, or governmental body, not to familiar with Iran's government.
Comment has been collapsed.
I find fascinating that in today's world that companies and crowds can censor people with much, much more power than at any time in history, the only worry is if the goverment can or not censor
Probably because companies and social media snowflakes are not empowered to crush you with a tank or throw you in jail and execute you.
If you lose your twitter account (a feat that seems to be achievable right now only if you criticize Elon Musk, so much for freedom of speech), you are free to use another social media app. If you can't manage to get an account on Truth Social (I heard it could be impenetrable), you are free to grab a chair and stand outside your house and say whatever you want to whomever is within earshot.
On the other hand, if you're for Hong Kong citizenship or if you are a woman and refuse to wear a hijab, consequences will be more dire and more definitive.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for the well written posting! I don't get why people view social media etc as public space and blame them for censorship instead of thinking about the root cause why social media became so big and powerful.
Comment has been collapsed.
While I don't agree with his views on abortion he still has a point regarding the whole losing his job thing though? If anyone could be fired just for saying bigoted stuff on Twitter half of the US would be starving under a bridge right now.
Comment has been collapsed.
My point was precisely that these repercussions can easily get out of hand. Sure, we're talking about an ex-CEO here so it's not like losing his job meant he would starve in the streets. He did talk about depression and suicide though, which means it still had some pretty heavy consequences. If we apply this "repercussion" to anyone that could be in his situation, whether they were rich, poor, priviledged or not, having their life turned upside down just because they happened to say some stupid shit on the internet feels more like a dystopia than social justice to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well I don't know whether he's lying or not, but speaking as someone who had to deal with depression and suicidal thoughts I wouldn't wish that to happen to anyone, no matter how I disagreed with their opinions. So my hypothetical situation actually does apply here because no matter how bigoted that guy is he's still a human being.
Comment has been collapsed.
Even if you don't agree with what Gibson is, at the end of the day all he did was post his opinion. Tripwire isn't the huge company you think it is, Gibson hardly had any followers on twitter to begin with, he doesn't have the reach you think he is.
If we are to be punished for expressing our opinions, we might aswell turn into North Korea.
Gibson is an asshole for many reasons. Expressing an opinion, wether an informed one or not, is not one of them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Gibson did not use it to 'his advantage'. He used it to express an opinion.
Tripwire themselves have never stated wether they fired Gibson over this, or over the other multitude of shady business he had within his development and publishing directives, which is much more likely over saying an opinion that is most likely shared by other higher ups in there as they're all of similar backgrounds.
His opinion also didn't hurt anyone, and wouldn't ever have the potential to do so. The laws of the state he is in could, which is something that, outside of voting, is nothing he can change.
What you're asking for is for people to stop disagreeing with you under the pretense that it "hurts people", yet you're willing to hurt those that disagree with you. Sure, Gibson is still seeing income, but it's not like people losing their jobs over stating an opinion online is anything new; which hurts much more than seeing an opinion you disagree with.
I genuinely don't get how people think an opinion being stated can hurt anyone. It's such a new age insanity that it boggles the mind.
Comment has been collapsed.
it certainly does and bad acting politicians will use this ignorance to push harmful agendas on vulnerable people at the first chance they get.
True, but this happens to both republicans and democrats parties.
If these views aren't challenged then it may mistakenly be thought of as the general consensus
Wether it's the general consensus or not I agree that views should be challenged regardless of what they are.
But there's a difference between challenging views and outright harming a person's wellbeing over their views.
In this case no one's really harmed, but the fact that it can happen to a CEO just shows that it can happen to anyone regardless of position.
Comment has been collapsed.
Gibson hardly had any followers on twitter to begin with
No, but his game Killing Floor 2 has. And not everyone who (has) played it follow their account. But here we are, an anti-abortion song in KF2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3QBpJIxFRo
If it was pro-abortion (or anything remotely considered "woke"), conservatives and other right-wingers would screech murder and say the game pushes a political agenda.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can agree that the song's lyrics, which you can disable anyway, pushes an agenda, as does most of the vocals in the music in KF2, as it is compromised of christian metal for some reason.
But this is a single part of a single game. This is no reason to wish ill on any person regardless of your views.
If it really bothered you, you can, again, just disable the lyrics. Suddenly all the problems are gone.
As for your comment on conservatives or right wingers, well, since this is an hypothetical, we can't know what would've actually happened, would we? The last time I saw people being up in arms about a game it wasn't right wingers, I can tell you that much. Remember how people were offended over a joke in Ion Fury that you could very well not even notice even if you played the game from beggining to end? How Elizabeth's design in Bioshock Infinite pre-release was considered 'problematic' by leftists? I'm sure you can find plenty of examples around because crazy people exist everywhere.
Comment has been collapsed.
The last time I saw people being up in arms about a game it wasn't right wingers, I can tell you that much. Remember how people were offended over a joke in Ion Fury that you could very well not even notice even if you played the game from beggining to end? How Elizabeth's design in Bioshock Infinite pre-release was considered 'problematic' by leftists?
You gotta give me sources the one for Bioshock, since Google doesn't show anything. The one for Ion Fury, goes a bit further than just a a joke in the game.
On August 16, 2019, less than a day after the official release, Discord chat logs from members of Voidpoint were shared, displaying purportedly transphobic remarks by the developers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_FuryI'm sure you can find plenty of examples around because crazy people exist everywhere.
And yeah, I can find plenty for right-wingers too. But I'm just gonna keep it short and leave one for now.
https://www.polygon.com/2018/9/26/17902302/total-war-rome-2-developer-response-female-generals-historical-accuracy
Comment has been collapsed.
Although it seems the articles about Elizabeth have been lost to time, I've still found remains of people talking about the articles:
https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/ofttk/whats_wrong_with_elizabeths_boobs_in_bioshock/
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/605052-bioshock-infinite/61569512?page=1
As for Ion Fury, you can, still to this day, find people commenting on the joke in the steam discussions. Regardless I'm glad they didn't fire (as far as we know) anyone over this, but it doesn't change the fact that this has happened before and will continue to happen, no matter the spectrum of the political agenda you fall on.
People will always complain about things, regardless of background.
It's important to learn to separate insane cult-like behaviour from sane people.
Comment has been collapsed.
People will always complain about things, regardless of background.
It's important to learn to separate insane cult-like behaviour from sane people.
Sounds like a good spot to end the discussion, since we can both agree on that.
Comment has been collapsed.
"purportedly transphobic" I have found five articles already furious at the supposed transphobic , and the developers apparently hate all trans and want to kill them.
It took me a while to find those transphobic remarks, since not even wikipedia has it
The transphobic remark is "if you're trying to decide your child is trans at birth you have mental problems and probably shouldn't be a parent imo" . It's missing context, but I don't see it exactly as pure transphobic hate and wanting to kill all trans. May be wrong, though.
Would you fire all the developers, as the crowd wanted, for that remark of a single one?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well forgive me for trying to show empathy even to the worst people out there. People can change and be redeemed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Lay off the internet political sphere for a while Adolf, it'll make you less bitter. People are allowed to show empathy.
Comment has been collapsed.
This isn't about gibson dog this is about you you're the most joyless person i've ever seen in this website like damn dude let people speak if you disagree with them dawg
Comment has been collapsed.
In a sense, if he was willing to voice his opinion and take a side that could hurt billions, even more so when he is in a position of power and has an influence, he should be wiling to also accept the consequence that comes with it, also he's in no position to then go back on any tv and complain he feels attacked for taking a side completely rather than try and understand the other or compromise, especially when all he lost was a title, but maintained his position and pay in the same place, so basically he lost nothing but his title as CEO. He isn't going homeless. Like "boo hoo I told women who are raped that they should still carry the baby, and for that they don't call me a ceo at work anymore, I still make the same money and do the same work but yeah, I mean, it's making me depressed and suicidal that I can't have my CEO title.". Like, no one asked, what is this a temper tantrum from a kid, people told told him his opinion was stupid in the first place. That's time to reflect, ask a friend first before he thinks stupid shit next time, not to point out how upset he is he couldn't win. Crocodile tears from a loser.
So basically no matter what wrong someone does we shouldn't hurt them or get them depressed because they're human? I don't know about that.
A female in texas that was raped and is pregnant right now has to take it to court and for months keep that baby in their belly to grow while the court decides whether she should give birth to a child that she was forced to have. Is his opinion wrong enough that he should lose his position now? Yes. Should anyone give a flying fox that he's depressed about it? No. Because him being happy to announce it is his belief that this is the right thing to do, is insane, as a "fellow" human being. He doesn't care about those women in those situations. He doesn't care about those children that wont be able to be taken care of. He doesn't care how many children will be abandoned. Just a rich guy, who doesn't actually understand the life of others.
Would you still care for the feelings of a person that said the same if this was your mother? You say you struggled with depression and suicidal thoughts. Imagine what someone who is raped and goes through this unfortunate event goes through. What if it was your mom, and she was being forced to have the baby? Would you still believe the people who believe she should have the baby shouldn't be criticized to the point where they at least have to hide their titles in their companies? That's all he lost, he still works there, makes the same pay. Your mom would still have to carry the child of someone who raped her, assuming the court case wouldn't resolve in time, or that she'd lose, both of which are highly likely, since having the baby doesn't endanger her life. Would that baby grow to be happy never knowing it's father, or knowing it was the product of rape and unwanted by it's own mother? What if it was you.
Unfortunately you can't treat these people nicely, because while it may just be an opinion, he speaks from a position of power, he has some relevancy even in his own company. Not only that, he's in the entertainment industry, and the content he makes is for children primarily, so those children will grow and maybe be influenced by his crazy ideas. We are either bosses or followers in this life. While I completely see your point that it would be great if we could live in a utopia(followers love this idea of we are born equal and everyone can work together), that will never be the case. There will always be people willing to take advantage of others(bosses, who understand how to use followers to their advantage or a followers weak mindset to control them), and this guy is that type of person. Followers always say we can take care of it tomorrow, we'll make it better tomorrow, they'll treat us nicer tomorrow. Stop it while you can or it's just going to get worse.
Comment has been collapsed.
So basically no matter what wrong someone does we shouldn't hurt them or get them depressed because they're human?
Not because they're human, but because they're expressing an opinion. To me that is insane. Yes you're allowed to criticize that opinion, you're allowed to call him an idiot. And in this case Gibson hasn't really lost much but the fact that it can and has happened before, regardless of your position, is rooms for concern. You shouldn't lose a job just because you don't agree with something. The alternative is losing our freedom of speech which would make us socioculturally no different to North Korea, or Russia, China and I'm sure other countries aswell.
A female in texas that was raped and is pregnant right now has to take it to court and for months keep that baby in their belly to grow while the court decides whether she should give birth to a child that she was forced to have
Not true.
There are and have always been laws specifically for rape cases, not just in texas but in most if not all states. She would be able to abort, or be directed to a place where she can do so.
...the content he makes is for children primarily,
Not true.
All of tripwire's games have always been rated as M for mature. You can make a case that even so they're aiming more for teens with all the flashy effects and shooting and whatnot, but never for outright kids.
Comment has been collapsed.
A. "Not because they're human, but because they're expressing an opinion. To me that is insane. Yes you're allowed to criticize that opinion, you're allowed to call him an idiot. And in this case Gibson hasn't really lost much but the fact that it can and has happened before, regardless of your position, is rooms for concern. You shouldn't lose a job just because you don't agree with something. The alternative is losing our freedom of speech which would make us socioculturally no different to North Korea, or Russia, China and I'm sure other countries aswell."
It's an opinion, but when a lot of bad opinions come together, it becomes a law, and that law affects someone elses life, not his, since he can not even carry a baby, and will never have to go through the hardships of it. So if he's willing to destroy someone elses life, shouldn't someone else also be willing to destroy his? He never expressed his concerns at the depression and suicidal thoughts someone who can't abort due to whatever reason might go through, only his excitement to announce that he supports something that could hurt a bunch of people ,and showed no remorse for it. How exactly is this different I'm sorry, a mass of individual people then complained about his opinion, and their voice was right, his opinion was bad, and so the company to try and deflect from the outrage at least hid him from public view, but he still maintains everything but his title to today, so technically he's lost nothing, yet he went on tv to say how upset he is that he can't have his title anymore, despite the fact that he was willing to destroy peoples lives. How is that okay? Sorry I'm not processing. It's okay for him specifically to destroy other people's lives, but not for others to destroy his?
B. "Not true.
There are and have always been laws specifically for rape cases, not just in texas but in most if not all states. She would be able to abort, or be directed to a place where she can do so."
Uhm, I don't believe so, but feel free to correct me if you know something I don't. Rape isn't necessarily the only situation, I know I pointed it out, but there are many other situations where someone might want to abort, but entertain this one if you will.
According to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Texas -> : " The law makes no exception for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. The law can only be enforced through private lawsuits." Which is exactly what I said. She's directed to court, to take her case to court, get it approved, file paperwork, pay money on lawyers, documents, etc. and spend what? Months while the case is decided in court, and then, if she wins the case, she can go abort, all with a rapists baby inside of her, all this if the case is decided before she gives birth. "The only scenario where abortion is permitted is to save the life of a pregnant woman. "
C. "Not true.
All of tripwire's games have always been rated as M for mature. You can make a case that even so they're aiming more for teens with all the flashy effects and shooting and whatnot, but never for outright kids."
M rated is 17+ in the first place, which is still for individuals who cannot yet vote, so it applies, but if you're going to say whether they aim their games at adults or at children I don't think that would lose in any court if you were to pull their data in a court. Sometimes what they write on paper vs what you get is a bit of a fairy tale because you allow them to like I explained in my other post. A bit of an assumption here, but you yourself have played not one, but multiple m rated games before you were 17. Just an assumption, but I highly doubt I'm wrong. Let me know if I'm wrong, totally interested, maybe you're a special case and those m rated games just never interested you as a kid more than the other stuff around. Maybe you think it wasn't meant for you because it had a letter that said "M" on it, maybe it was and they knew your parents didn't give a damn, and if you have kids you probably wont much either. Just an assumption.
Comment has been collapsed.
t's an opinion, but when a lot of bad opinions come together, it becomes a law, and that law affects someone elses life, not his, since he can not even carry a baby, and will never have to go through the hardships of it.
This is a good point and I agree with it in a sense. In this case, I'm not a woman so my voice in rights or laws regarding women really carries no weight in my eyes. I can't speak for people that I simply don't represent. At the same time this is my personal view and it works for me because I'm a single individual; I'm not sure how it would affect a bigger demographic.
It's okay for him specifically to destroy other people's lives, but not for others to destroy his?
Neither is okay.
In this specific case nothing was really lost so it doesn't much matter if he lost his title, though.
She's directed to court, to take her case to court, get it approved, file paperwork, pay money on lawyers, documents, etc. and spend what? Months while the case is decided in court, and then, if she wins the case, she can go abort, all with a rapists baby inside of her, all this if the case is decided before she gives birth.
The process is flawed for sure, and I was under the impression that there were laws in Texas specifically to deal with it - regardless, it seems that when she isn't able to abort is becuase she'll survive, and there are options to take care of unwanted children post-birth, like giving them into adoption.
I'm not anti-abortion, and I can't imagine what the process of giving birth is like, but it doesn't seem, from an outsider's point of view, that it's the end of the world if you can't abort and are forced to give birth.
M rated is 17+ in the first place, which is still for individuals who cannot yet vote
I think this varies from place to place, because here it's 18+, at age at which you can already vote. Personally I think the age you are able to vote should be higher but I guess that's neither here nor there.
but you yourself have played not one, but multiple m rated games before you were 17
True, and much younger, but when I was underage those games were always purchased under supervision of at least one of my parents, who made sure to instill in me that real life isn't a videogame by any means, and was something I understood myself. Plenty of times my mother would watch me play some of these games too, so it's not like it was ever hidden in my household. This is a personal experience though so I don't know if it accounts for the majority of people or not.
I do think you have a point in here though, underage kids do buy and play games that are not meant to be played at that age. I'm not sure what the solution would be to this problem though, other than parents supervising their kids more, which I don't know how hard it would be to do as I am not a parent.
Comment has been collapsed.
A. "This is a good point and I agree with it in a sense. In this case, I'm not a woman so my voice in rights or laws regarding women really carries no weight in my eyes. I can't speak for people that I simply don't represent. At the same time this is my personal view and it works for me because I'm a single individual; I'm not sure how it would affect a bigger demographic."
See, I like your view that this specifically doesn't even pertain to my sex so technically what right do I have to speak on it? It makes sense. What happens though is, if you don't take a stance, someone else will, and they might be on the opposition or the side that wants to decide for someone. So by default, it should feel natural to take a stance that defends these rights for women, since technically you are made to take a stance when you vote. I too shouldn't have a right in deciding this for women, but at the same time, I see the importance of them being able to decide for themselves, and as stupid as it sounds, if I decide to not partake, I'd basically stay neutral, while some other male who has certain influence, lets say religions, wont, because he has the same right to vote, but his certain beliefs dictate for him something that he technically shouldn't vote for.
I also wouldn't want a baby to basically be killed for dumb reasons like sex is more fun with no protection. There's 4 options for females and 2 for males as far as I just researched + there's toys, so in a sense there isn't much excuse for either party, and doing it without either one should understand what they sign up for. Afterwards there maybe should be the options of abortions within a reasonable period of time(which Texas banned) but I don't necessarily believe those should be paid for by tax money(which many females want? I think that's kind of disgraceful, make someone else pay for your abortion because you didn't care, so it is their responsibility), it seems a little ridiculous for me. So I can see how a more restrictive ruling could to some degree help keep people more accountable and prevent babies being killed(the previous law was abortions up to 21.6 weeks if I read correctly, meaning you could abort when you were 5 months into the pregnancy, that's basically ridiculous since most can usually tell within a few weeks, and at months you already develop certain features, + you can test like every 2 months if you have that much sex and you can regularly use pregnancy tests). No one needed 5 months. But adding that people in certain conditions, like rape should still have to have the baby unless of course they take their case to court, is ridiculous, and a pretty inhuman act from whoever. So to some degree it feels right to want to protect that little life too, within reason.
B. "Neither is okay.
In this specific case nothing was really lost so it doesn't much matter if he lost his title, though."
Right, but I guess in a sense, Texas got their way, so women will suffer. The guy did announce his support for this. The company in an attempt to deflect just removed his title but still kept him on the same amount of pay and position so there was pretty much no repercussion. I mean CEO doesn't say much when you're still CEO in the shadows. Then he went on tv to complain life wasn't fair for him but still didn't consider the ones suffering, nor did he retract his opinion as far as I know. So I believe it's completely normal for people to be upset that despite that women will have these hardships, the most they could do to this guy is hide him as CEO from his company. It's not a big deal since he's basically irrelevant, I know, but in a sense, the women in a sense took the L for this one, and he ended up neutral.
C. "The process is flawed for sure, and I was under the impression that there were laws in Texas specifically to deal with it - regardless, it seems that when she isn't able to abort is because she'll survive, and there are options to take care of unwanted children post-birth, like giving them into adoption.
I'm not anti-abortion, and I can't imagine what the process of giving birth is like, but it doesn't seem, from an outsider's point of view, that it's the end of the world if you can't abort and are forced to give birth."
I guess in a sense what goes through my head, on top of being raped for instance, someone know also will probably have to go through the trauma and decision making whether to abandon or keep the child and it will always be an extra reminder. If they abandon it, it's still part of her pretty much, even if she never wanted it, so it's probably hard for any mother not to love her child, but how could it not always remind her of an unfortunate event, and isn't the thing we'd want the most for someone in this situation to be able to move forward from this pain despite all the negative emotions that they will struggle with for many years until they find some sort of peace. While it might no seem as the end of the world and it isn't, we've taken a stance to put more pressure onto these individuals already in pain, why? I don't actually know.
D. "I think this varies from place to place, because here it's 18+, at age at which you can already vote. Personally I think the age you are able to vote should be higher but I guess that's neither here nor there."
I suppose I should have considered this will differ across the world, I was trying to ease into my next point that chances are my belief is that most parents don't really case if it's M rated or not, if they kid really wants it they will think it's not that big of a deal.
F. "True, and much younger, but when I was underage those games were always purchased under supervision of at least one of my parents, who made sure to instill in me that real life isn't a videogame by any means, and was something I understood myself. Plenty of times my mother would watch me play some of these games too, so it's not like it was ever hidden in my household. This is a personal experience though so I don't know if it accounts for the majority of people or not.
I do think you have a point in here though, underage kids do buy and play games that are not meant to be played at that age. I'm not sure what the solution would be to this problem though, other than parents supervising their kids more, which I don't know how hard it would be to do as I am not a parent."
In that sense we'll all have different experiences, maybe we went to an internet cafe if our parents didn't let us play those, maybe we played at a friends house, maybe under supervision, with them, they just needed some alone time, etc. All kinds of situations. I guess what I'm saying there generally is a way, and we're lead into that temptation. If it didn't seem fun for that audience, they wouldn't strive so much to get it, but they do, and they get it, and it's kind of factual. Yes we can put a m rating on it, yes we can claim we have that m rating cause it's required by adults who have the best interests of our kids in their mind, but at the end of the day big corporations make these products targeting certain people, the rating is just a requirement they are forced to put onto it, doesn't mean they do it out of kindness, it's required. If they don't have to put it there, trust me, they wont, since it would allow them free reign into that audience. The target is the same in the end. If the target was adults, we'd get instructional games and simulators a lot more often, and work hard for nothing games, like mmos, or maybe even super complex games, but those are not very popular with a young audience and it shows.
There's really no way to avoid younger audiences playing these type of games because the reality is these are games aimed at a younger audience. The M rating is bullshit, yes there's a few games that definitely deserve that, or m+ rating, but a very large majority of these games are completely fine because that's all they are. However it's in a sense our fault because we've pushed for this regulation and people who don't even play games believe it has the so so negative impact if the player is 15 and playing a zombie game vs someone that's 17 for instance like they magically figured it all out and "zombies are out there in the Sahara desert we just don't go there often kid so that's why you never saw one irl, once you turn 18 we're throwing you out there and you got to survive 3 months by looting and building yourself a shelter or we have to kick you out o the family, this game is just survival training for you".
Comment has been collapsed.
What happens though is, if you don't take a stance, someone else will, and they might be on the opposition or the side that wants to decide for someone. So by default, it should feel natural to take a stance that defends these rights for women, since technically you are made to take a stance when you vote. I too shouldn't have a right in deciding this for women, but at the same time, I see the importance of them being able to decide for themselves, and as stupid as it sounds, if I decide to not partake, I'd basically stay neutral, while some other male who has certain influence, lets say religions, wont, because he has the same right to vote, but his certain beliefs dictate for him something that he technically shouldn't vote for.
This is true however you have to remember that for every person that doesn't vote, someone else does. I can't in good conscience vote for something I don't believe I even should be allowed to. You still have a point in saying that if I don't vote then someone else will vote with ill intent instead but without knowing the exact data of the ratio this occurs at it's impossible for me to still justify my own vote - however as I've said before that's my belief as an individual, and I don't apply it to anyone but myself, if other people want to vote on something that doesn't even directly affect them I do believe they should be able to.
I also wouldn't want a baby to basically be killed for dumb reasons like sex is more fun with no protection.
I agree and I don't like that people dehumanize fetuses by calling them 'lumps of cells'. As if fully grown living beings are anything else but.
But adding that people in certain conditions, like rape should still have to have the baby unless of course they take their case to court, is ridiculous, and a pretty inhuman act from whoever. So to some degree it feels right to want to protect that little life too, within reason.
This is a complicated issue without a simple answer unfortunately, my stance on abortion from regular sex is that if people want to go through with it, they should be at least punished somehow; as I said you are at the end of the day, from abortion, killing something that will grow up to be a baby eventually, and there's no spinning this. But I understand it's not a simple issue.
With rape it's a bit more complicated as obviously the woman will not want to bare a child that she didn't even consent to - plus it's hard to prove it's rape as oppossed to consensual sex in the first place. I don't think they should be forced to look after a child they simply don't want to look after, but past that I simply don't know what solution there could be.
Texas got their way, so women will suffer.
The company in an attempt to deflect just removed his title but still kept him on the same amount of pay and position so there was pretty much no repercussion. I mean CEO doesn't say much when you're still CEO in the shadows.
Good point albeit I will say that in this case I think it would be whoever would be in charge in Texas of approving this law that takes the blame, and not the CEO of a videogame company. Not that you can't throw shade at him mind you; Gibson is far from a saint even without all this drama.
I guess in a sense what goes through my head, on top of being raped for instance, someone know also will probably have to go through the trauma and decision making whether to abandon or keep the child and it will always be an extra reminder. If they abandon it, it's still part of her pretty much, even if she never wanted it, so it's probably hard for any mother not to love her child, but how could it not always remind her of an unfortunate event, and isn't the thing we'd want the most for someone in this situation to be able to move forward from this pain despite all the negative emotions that they will struggle with for many years until they find some sort of peace. While it might no seem as the end of the world and it isn't, we've taken a stance to put more pressure onto these individuals already in pain, why? I don't actually know.
Just goes back to my thoughts earlier in this post. It's a complicated issue with no clear answer. I just don't like people dehumanizing fetuses.
I was trying to ease into my next point that chances are my belief is that most parents don't really case if it's M rated or not, if they kid really wants it they will think it's not that big of a deal.
Yeah, I half agree with you here. Parents will probably think it's not that big of a deal. At the end of the day if a kid is underage parents are still responsible for him, so if they willingly buy an M rated game for a kid, and that affects the kid in a negative way (which after a certain age i doubt it will - kids understand videogames aren't real life) it is, for better or for worse, their responsability. Of course, if the kid gets the game without the supervision of one of his guardians it's a different story.
at the end of the day big corporations make these products targeting certain people, the rating is just a requirement they are forced to put onto it, doesn't mean they do it out of kindness, it's required.
I agree, but I don't think little kids are the target demographic for these games - it's usually more targetted towards teens or young adults with all the shooting and blood and explosions and whatnot. Not that a kid wouldn't find this fun of course - or that anyone else can't or anything like that - just that I don't believe they're the main target demographic.
but a very large majority of these games are completely fine because that's all they are. However it's in a sense our fault because we've pushed for this regulation and people who don't even play games believe it has the so so negative impact if the player is 15 and playing a zombie game vs someone that's 17 for instance like they magically figured it all out and "zombies are out there in the Sahara desert we just don't go there often kid so that's why you never saw one irl, once you turn 18 we're throwing you out there and you got to survive 3 months by looting and building yourself a shelter or we have to kick you out o the family, this game is just survival training for you".
I agree with the former, and while the latter is true, I believe this kind of message comes from uninformed people who are too stubborn to be informed - once again something I'm not certain how to fix by any means, though.
Comment has been collapsed.
So basically no matter what wrong someone does we shouldn't hurt them or get them depressed because they're human?
Why would I want to hurt someone for something they did? It wouldn't unmake any of these things.
What if it was your mom, and she was being forced to have the baby? Would you still believe the people who believe she should have the baby shouldn't be criticized to the point where they at least have to hide their titles in their companies?
No, I would just believe that those people should stop talking about things they don't know about. Be educated if they're willing to learn. Be ignored if not. Making them suffer because my mom suffered wouldn't change a thing about her suffering.
Would that baby grow to be happy never knowing it's father, or knowing it was the product of rape and unwanted by it's own mother? What if it was you.
Well actually someone in my family was the product of an unwanted pregnancy, and without that person I wouldn't be here today. Anyway you can't really judge another person's happiness in their place. Also I don't know why you're trying to guilt-trip me with this kind of comparison because I already said earlier that I don't share this guy's opinions on abortion, and I believe the person carrying the child should ultimately be the one who gets to have the final decision so my own opinion is irrelevant.
We are either bosses or followers in this life.
Sorry you're speaking to a nihilist here. All human beings are both of these things to various degrees.
Comment has been collapsed.
a. "Why would I want to hurt someone for something they did? It wouldn't unmake any of these things." I see, so it's okay to leave them alone and allow them to voice similar opinions that will again hurt others in the future right? I mean since we're not doing anything about it, why not just let others suffer so that he doesn't suffer. We can't help anyone right? Everyone weak has no right to complain they will suffer by this logic if you ask me because by complaining they suffer it will in turn make someone who is well off suffer that in the first place is part of the reason why they are suffering, and while it's okay for some people to hurt some, the weak should never hurt others but just endure? I'm sorry I don't follow in this logic at all, you will have to elaborate.
b. "No, I would just believe that those people should stop talking about things they don't know about. Be educated if they're willing to learn. Be ignored if not. Making them suffer because my mom suffered wouldn't change a thing about her suffering."
I see but they have already talked about things they don't know about, they might change the topic and speak about something similar in the future that hurts others. Your mom wouldn't have to suffer the entire ordeal without this person's vote, but right now despite your mom saying and crying and being suicidal and depressed that she doesn't want to have this baby, she is forced to have it, yet, your concern is that the people who are forcing your mom to go through this pain should mind their own business, and even if they aren't, you just wouldn't bother speaking against them because you wouldn't want to hurt their feelings, despite them having no problem hurting your mom? I still do not follow. There isn't a single thing in this world I would put above my mother, but okay.
c. "Well actually someone in my family was the product of an unwanted pregnancy, and without that person I wouldn't be here today. Anyway you can't really judge another person's happiness in their place. Also I don't know why you're trying to guilt-trip me with this kind of comparison because I already said earlier that I don't share this guy's opinions on abortion, and I believe the person carrying the child should ultimately be the one who gets to have the final decision so my own opinion is irrelevant."
This isn't a bad point and I'm happy it all worked in your scenario, I was just pointing out that the chances of someone coming out extremely great and happy out of a very unhappy situation are probably lower than higher, also hem having the amazing opportunities that 2 individuals could provide them etc. rather than just one. It was more subjective but I understand how it can apply to one single thing and I was just suggesting how the chances are not looking great that most of this situations will have a happy ending, since you're basically starting with a handicap in the list of opportunities.
As for guilt tripping you, I apologize if you feel this way, it wasn't my intention but I suppose it comes across that way. My intention was to really put these two things on a balance and understand which of these two things is more important to you. This individuals right to speak, knowing his voice is part of the reason which has caused harm to your family member, or rather this individual being canceled after he speaks something knowing his voice could become part of the reason which would have caused harm to your family member? In a sense, it has to do with the first thing you said "Why would I want to hurt someone for something they did? It wouldn't unmake any of these things." Sure, we can't unmake what's already done, but we can at least try to prevent future damage, and it is actually our duty to do so. This ties in with the next point regarding bosses and followers.
d. "Sorry you're speaking to a nihilist here. All human beings are both of these things to various degrees."
There's nothing wrong with that so no need to apologize, but I believe it doesn't actually affect what I claim in any way, if you consider that every individual has both a % of bossing and a % of following(if I'm understanding correctly from what you're saying), then basically some individuals have a super high concentration of bossing, and so they end up as bosses, and some have a higher concentration of following, and so end up as followers. It completely applies to your belief if I'm correct? I mean I don't think anyone on this planet could deny that some individuals OWN much larger shares of life that others do and have the power to have much bigger impacts on things due to these things they own. Some will never work for any of these things at all. If you look at the richest people in the world, their families are just born into wealth and born with enough power to influence political parties(and you hear of this all the time), while someone born into poverty doesn't have the same opportunity to experience the same things as someone who has a much larger share of life than them. To this degree by nature someone who is born into wealth is guaranteed a higher % of the bossing attribute, even if maybe they would naturally like to be a follower, and that might conflict at times, and vice versa. Let me know if you think I'm wrong and what is your take on this otherwise, I'm interested in debating.
Comment has been collapsed.
Everyone weak has no right to complain they will suffer by this logic if you ask me because by complaining they suffer it will in turn make someone who is well off suffer that in the first place is part of the reason why they are suffering, and while it's okay for some people to hurt some, the weak should never hurt others but just endure? I'm sorry I don't follow in this logic at all, you will have to elaborate.
I never said it was OK for some people to hurt others? Besides how exactly is hurting others going to help those who suffer? It doesn't solve their problem, it just makes more people miserable. Human rights are not a zero-sum game, you can give them to some without taking them from others.
Your mom wouldn't have to suffer the entire ordeal without this person's vote, but right now despite your mom saying and crying and being suicidal and depressed that she doesn't want to have this baby, she is forced to have it, yet, your concern is that the people who are forcing your mom to go through this pain should mind their own business, and even if they aren't, you just wouldn't bother speaking against them because you wouldn't want to hurt their feelings, despite them having no problem hurting your mom? I still do not follow. There isn't a single thing in this world I would put above my mother, but okay.
You're making several false equivalences here (and still using that guilt tripping analogy even though you apologized for it :/).
" I wouldn't want harm to come to them" =/= "I wouldn't speak against them". This is about that man losing his job, not about the opinions he expressed that caused him to lose it (which I already described as "bigoted").
"There isn't a single thing in this world I would put above my mother" =/= "Nobody would put anything above the well-being of their mother". Different people, different experiences. There are many things I would put above the well-being of my mother. There are also people who, for various reasons, hate their parents (although I'm not one of those).
There's nothing wrong with that so no need to apologize, but I believe it doesn't actually affect what I claim in any way, if you consider that every individual has both a % of bossing and a % of following(if I'm understanding correctly from what you're saying), then basically some individuals have a super high concentration of bossing, and so they end up as bosses, and some have a higher concentration of following, and so end up as followers. It completely applies to your belief if I'm correct?
Not really, I just meant that everyone's both a master and a slave at various points of their life depending on who or what they interact with, and even the most powerful people are still slaves to death and entropy so totally meaningless at the scale of the universe.
Sorry there are a couple points I would have liked to elaborate further on, but I probably won't be posting here anymore, I spent like 3 hours writing this post and deleting half of it, I'm totally brainlocked right now. I feel like I should have just followed my instinct and refrained from posting into what was very obviously a political thread, because all the toxicity I'm seeing all around (not referring to your post, just the thread in general) is sending my anxiety through the roof.
Comment has been collapsed.
A. "I never said it was OK for some people to hurt others? Besides how exactly is hurting others going to help those who suffer? It doesn't solve their problem, it just makes more people miserable. Human rights are not a zero-sum game, you can give them to some without taking them from others."
Right you don't necessarily say it's ok, but you're against silencing those who are willing to go as far as to hurt others, so you fall in two categories, blissful ignorance, you just don't care enough to at least speak against it, maybe because it doesn't affect you or whatever else, maybe you feel it's not your right to talk about it, or the second category you support it for whatever reason which is bad. One of the two. If you take my stance for instance, I think it's completely fine to silence those who will voice opinions like that because their opinions will eventually lead to someone being hurt and it technically is a common sense thing that they shouldn't be hurt. If you'd like another analogy, what if this had to do with Nazism, should we still just ignore that? Last time it was ignored and nothing was done about it in time, what, 60 million people eventually died.
B. "You're making several false equivalences here (and still using that guilt tripping analogy even though you apologized for it :/)." There's nothing false about some of these situations. I'm just trying to appeal to your moral sense, it was just easier this way. I can tell it bothers you and that's a good thing, it should, it didn't bother him, but it would bother him too if it was someone important to him in that situation. The easiest way to demonstrate it is to ask someone how would they react in that situation, because they don't like to answer that, because generally if that situation applied to them, they'd be against it, and yet, this individual supported it. That's the whole point of making that analogy.
C. "" I wouldn't want harm to come to them" =/= "I wouldn't speak against them". This is about that man losing his job, not about the opinions he expressed that caused him to lose it (which I already described as "bigoted")."
I think the overwhelming majority of people don't want anyone to suffer in the way you are probably imagining it. What you seem to miss is that the overwhelming amount of people that disagreed with this person and messaged/complained through whatever means people/shareholders above this individual is what caused him to lose his ceo title, and that's it, the leaders still kept him around, he still kept his share in the company. So people's voices didn't have as much of an impact as they thought it would, but they realized it would affect their sales and they don't want him to represent the company. This is one of many cases but it would've been completely okay for him to lose his job. He is in a position of power. His best interest should be his customers, not to push agendas that hurt people. There can't be an excuse for that. He pushed an agenda people don't like because it puts others` livelihood in a bad position, and there was the consequence of him losing his title for that, that's normal and there should've been more. No one said he needs to lose two arms and a leg for it, but at least remove his power, so he becomes irrelevant. I mean what would happen if you went to your boss and called them super bad words and whatever today, you'd probably get fired. It's just cause and effect.
D. "There isn't a single thing in this world I would put above my mother" =/= "Nobody would put anything above the well-being of their mother". Different people, different experiences. There are many things I would put above the well-being of my mother. There are also people who, for various reasons, hate their parents (although I'm not one of those).
Sure, the mother example as I believe I said about twice now is just an example, we all have something important be it our own life, but that wouldn't excuse us in any regard for not understanding any womans rights(or mans), or a victims rights. They are fundamental things we should give to those beings and respect, not attempt to take away having not experienced their pain and troubles. So I don't see how he didn't know. It's possible he has no mother, but I believe he at least has a wife from what I read, so even then he should've considered how she would feel had this been the case for her and if he would support her or go against her.. But even then, he should just consider his fellow human beings maybe.
F. "Not really, I just meant that everyone's both a master and a slave at various points of their life depending on who or what they interact with, and even the most powerful people are still slaves to death and entropy so totally meaningless at the scale of the universe."
Then I cannot agree or understand. Most people die in mediocrity, having not achieved anything or done anything. It's factual, otherwise you'd see everyone's name recorded somewhere for the things they did at the best points in their life because they were masters at it, so that's not the case. Not everyone will achieve the same levels as someone else, actually the big overwhelming majority wont even come close to some. It's impossible. If everyone was to become great at some point in their life, that would mean that the bosses would also have to fall at some points in their life, and while a small percentage do for whatever reasons like being canceled by the lower masses, an overwhelming amount don't, because it's in the nature of a boss to not reverse back, why would they give a better life for a worse one?
Also, yes while we all die, regardless of who we are, in our short lifespan we can inflict pain to others, that doesn't mean we have to, but some do. Like yes, it makes us insignificant, like when you compare us to something like the lifespan of a star but even our short lives are a decent amount to us, and sometimes certain beliefs can carry past our death, for instance slavery. I'd rather silence those who tend towards it slowly and slowly now, then eventually many years after my death have us return to it. (even tho it's pretty much ongoing right now in certain parts of the world).
D. Sorry there are a couple points I would have liked to elaborate further on, but I probably won't be posting here anymore, I spent like 3 hours writing this post and deleting half of it, I'm totally brainlocked right now. I feel like I should have just followed my instinct and refrained from posting into what was very obviously a political thread, because all the toxicity I'm seeing all around (not referring to your post, just the thread in general) is sending my anxiety through the roof.
No stress, if you ever want to talk you can add me, I don't mind debating at all, I agree it can make brains go into pasta sometimes but I enjoy debating things, since I always learn new things. To some degree I always try and refrain from posts because I wonder myself how my opinion would be taken as well. Take care.
Comment has been collapsed.
I clicked on that PC Gamer link, read it and it made me remember one particular event from my life 2 years ago.
I just got my driver's license (had yet to buy a car) and I'm waiting in line in some small mall in my city. In front of me are a couple, a man and a woman. They're Gypsies. They smell of sweat and it's safe to assume they likely took a bath a week ago, the clothes on them also look like they haven't been washed in a while. The woman is pushing a baby in the stroller that looks like it's about to collapse any second (I think the sheer willpower of that baby is keeping it from falling apart). The man is either piss-ass drunk or on heroin, probably a bit of both. As the woman is talking to the cashier, I realize something from eavesdropping. She is pregnant. I also forgot to mention that she weighs maybe 30, 35 kilograms at best (66 pounds for you Americans).
And at that moment I had perhaps a bad thought, but I remember thinking how the best thing for that unborn child is to take those parents away to some forest, shoot them both point blank, and bury them in an unmarked grave. Because even that would give that child a better future than what is waiting for him now once he leaves that uterus.
Then I also started thinking about all the things I had to do to get my driver's license. Had to take classes, take a medical exam, take a psychologist exam, take a written test, take classes for first aid, take the first aid test, and only then I could take the actual driving part of the test. It all took just a bit over 6 months and it cost me around 600 euros. But for those two to conceive a child, no one had to examine them, to see if they are financially stable or sane. Nope.
I still have no idea what to think about abortion. I have this habit of not voicing my opinion when it is about stuff I don't know much about. And from my point of view, to know enough I would have to be a woman at some point, get pregnant, go through the intense physical and emotional pain of bringing a child into this world, and only then I would have a full experience and know enough to say something.
I'm saying that because every time there is some abortion talk and its pros and cons, I always notice one thing. It's always the men that are talking. Single men, married men, divorced men, sexually inexperienced men, bitter men, and so on. But oh man, they always have some opinions about abortion on standby.
One fun fact for the end: did you know that Saudi Arabia recently had its first convention about women's rights? Women were forbidden from participating btw because they cannot be in the same room as men
Comment has been collapsed.
I have this habit of not voicing my opinion when it is about stuff I don't know much about. And from my point of view, to know enough I would have to be a woman at some point, get pregnant, go through the intense physical and emotional pain of bringing a child into this world, and only then I would have a full experience and know enough to say something.
Social media would be a much quieter place if only people who are concerned by or know anything about an issue would speak, that's for sure.
One fun fact for the end: did you know that Saudi Arabia recently had its first convention about women's rights? Women were forbidden from participating btw because they cannot be in the same room as men
They probably just didn't want them in the room noticing they were actually talking about the World Cup.
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree with the Tripwire former-CEO's opinion but at the same time I think Cancel Culture is moronic. People don't deserve to have their livelihoods taken away from them and their lives ruined because someone percieves their opinions as "wrong". It seems that the majority of pro-Cancel Culture people hate fascism but don't realise they're acting like fascists at the same time.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't say it's "perceived as wrong". It is wrong. A raped woman shouldn't have to be forced to carry a baby. To agree with that means by default you have a bad opinion, and why should someone who isn't going through that pain dictate why someone else should have to go through that pain? The same person isn't taking into consideration what happens to the baby afterwards. Is it going to be abandoned, can the mother support it and give it the right things it needs to grow into a successful being? If someone else is just projecting some ideals onto someone else but don't themselves understand or aren't willing to first themselves go through that pain so they can at least say they have the experience then they in my opinion shouldn't have much of a voice or impact on that subject and it's completely fine to cancel someone because of that and it's actually well deserved.
If you're willing to destroy someone elses life by supporting legislation that would destroy someone elses life especially even more when it has no effect on yours, then aren't you technically canceling someone else to whatever degree? Isn't it okay then to get canceled in return? I think it's completely fair game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Somebody holds an opinion I don't like so I'm entitled to ruin their lives
If that's somebody's immediate reaction to hearing something they don't like then they have issues, to be blunt. If somebody has a dissenting opinion then they should be shown/told how it is from the opposing side to provide info so that they can try and understand the issue from all sides. In reality, the chances of being able to change someone's opinion is very slim so the real thing to do is get over it and accept that not everybody thinks identically and that's completely okay. Don't interact with those people and continue to do your own thing and handle things democratically (because most of us are lucky enough to live in a democracy and not everybody has that privilege).
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry I don't think I understand. He agreed that he is willing to destroy the lives of many females. Sure it's an opinion, but he has voting rights, he can vote for that opinion. He can influence people, to ruin other people's lives. Why is he willing to ruin others` lives? Why doesn't this bother him, why hasn't he considered this? Why should others explain themselves to him when he hasn't explained himself to others?
You say that people should show him the way, but what really is there to show him that he wouldn't find in two minutes of research? People were already extremely upset about the situation, there were certain explanations as to why this is a bad idea and why it isn't the right thing to do. I mean, it's honestly common sense, it's not rocket science.
Before he posts, especially since he knew he's in a position of power(also his same exact tweet said he doesn't post often as an entertainer, so he knew the effects it can have) he could've done a quick google search to see what this implies, and then a very very tiny amount of logic in his head. Like man, do I think for a woman in this situation to be forced to have a baby, a yes, shit I can't agree with that. What about this situation, oh damn I don't agree with this either. Damn this situation is not good either, okay, it must not be that good of a thing to pass. Shit, maybe I should either shut up, or definitely not say I'm supporting putting these people of pain, especially in my position since it might hurt me, my company and my employees, the people around me, and many will probably think differently of me, especially those who looked up to me or see me as an individual with power.
Like you tell me, at what point in his life did he think it was a good idea to post that trash? Or what, you want someone to explain to every single individual in utmost detail why their dumbass belief is wrong because they are ignorant and do 0 research before taking a side or thinking for a damn millisecond? Then people are supposed to be like "oh now he understands he's totally cool now". Then when he goes on tv to complain that he got canceled but not apologize and say he changed his mind, people are supposed to say "yeah this was kind of unfair to him, I mean I'm sure he's gonna going to be kind to people in the future".
Excuse me? I think a much more realistic approach is to shut him the hell up, then he at least understands that something he did say was wrong or must've been wrong enough if that can happen. If people can't even do that much, then how are you supposed to argue with them at all? The argument starts once you manage to shut him up and explain to him that his opinion will lead to many people being in pain, both women and children. Then, when he can't speak outloud, only then, will he start considering the situation of those who have no voice because of his previous choice and many who are in the same belief. If nothing changes for him, then he didn't say anything wrong.
Your suggestion to not interact with him and do your own thing is insane if you ask me. Because he will still continue to push his agenda that hurts your type of people, and he's been getting away with doing so. As long as you avoid him, he will keep pushing his agenda, and hurt more or maybe other groups of people with his belief. He wont understand he's wrong, if the company he works for isn't forced to silence him or cancel him or isn't hurt in any way, then why should they take any action against him. Your suggestion is to basically do nothing, and expect results.
I said this in a different post somewhere above to a different person, but in this world we are made of bosses and followers. Bosses will always find a way to take advantage of you or control/optimize you in a way because the followers allow them to, while followers avoid confrontations and are the type of people who will always say "well get it better tomorrow, it's not that big of a deal, I'm sure we'll all work together 'eventually', we're a team". It's cute to think this way, but it only works to the advantage of a boss. In the end you pick your side I suppose.
Comment has been collapsed.
The argument starts once you manage to shut him up
That line alone is very telling. It seems that the majority of "left-leaning" (not saying that being left-leaning is good or bad before anyone complains) people only want to silence dissenting opinions and browbeat anyone who disagrees with them and aren't actually willing to have civil discussions and/or debates. They preach tolerance and respect but then consider anyone who doesn't share their exact views as an enemy who must be eliminated and treat them like trash, which to me is very alarming behaviour. Any form of far-wing extremism simply doesn't work, so behaving that way isn't going to solve any problems, just cause more.
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree I'm sorry. I think most people that hold a similar belief to mine are completely open to discussion, problem is, there isn't much of a discussion to be had when the opposition can't even form arguments. It's like it's expected of normal human beings to explain to a ceo why it's not okay for him to announce he supports the law that agrees that raped women should still carry the baby through abortion. Not that he made claims as to why he supports it. But the other people have to justify themselves in front of him. Why? He can't think for himself? He can't go "uga buga human rights uga buga they deserve them uga buga oh damn I'm wrong?" Like sorry, did he wake up and regressed back to being completely stupid and he has to relearn everything from 0? He happens to be a ceo my man. He's in a position of power. He acknowledged that he normally doesn't post as someone in the entertainment industry. He knew he could post very controversial stuff. After he got canceled, instead of taking time to consider why he could be wrong(so he was given a second chance to at least apologize and change), he instead decided to go on tv and complain about how sad the situation is for him, because while he lost his ceo title. He didn't consider the women that are suffering at all. He still held the same opinion, wrong as is, but he wanted people to give him sympathy. I don't understand. He doesn't care for them, why should others care for him?
It's hard to ask intelligent beings to have civil discussions about this topic, because it's a human right. It shouldn't even be put up for discussion. So it's natural anyone with a grain of intelligence is going to look at this individual and think he's stupid, most people in this thread agree he's wrong. They wouldn't go as far as to "cancel him, but people who understand the power his opinions can have if ignored or let loose understand the importance of not letting it pass. So yes, it was important to work towards taking away his relevance at least, so he can stop spreading his agenda that will influence others, and eventually hurt more people. That's all they did. Is it cancel culture, yes, it's the only power they have.
Consider again that he went on tv to complain that he got canceled, not to apologize to people and say he understands that this is a basic human right people should have. Can you defend him? He still doesn't care, because this problem cannot affect him in any way. He's a man, can't have a baby. If he wanted to have an abortion done for his wife, he has money, he can fly wherever, whenever, probably hire a private doctor to have it. The poorer masses don't have that luxury. They'll have to endure. Doesn't affect him, cause he's rich. Oh and through all this that he suffered and all the efforts people went through to push him away, the most they could do is put him as a ceo in the shadows. He still keeps his salary and investment in the company.
I'm not going to associate myself with any group since I don't think I belong, I'm always willing to disagree with anyone at any time if they are wrong. I'm just here to demonstrate there's nothing wrong with canceling him, and he should've been canceled all the way. Just wanted to clarify that, since I guess I'm super left for saying there's nothing wrong with this guy being canceled. He said something stupid, he supported inflicting pain to others, complained about it becoming an inconvenient situation for him. I don't feel sorry for him at all and think just being the shadow ceo isn't basically any change. He hasn't lost money, he hasn't lost his shares, he holds the same power in the company, they just don't allow him to call himself the ceo anymore. He's just upset people didn't agree he voiced his support for making a woman's rights worse, even more so when he's not even a woman. Like what's with this feel sorry for the ceo he's not that big of a deal. Uhm, no thanks? This guy is retired, and secure for the rest of his life. Canceling him has no effect on his life. Keep that in mind, look at his net worth.
Comment has been collapsed.
For those who are saying cancel culture does not exist, please try this from any of your social media profiles: Add any public post/tweet with a view that is radically different than the "liberals" (lol this word has lost its meaning!). Just anything.
For example:
1) Black People can be racist.
2) Trans people should not participate in men/women's sports.
3) There is no pay gap between men and women. It's just a matter of specific positions, experience, and/or expectations.
Post these from your public profile and wait. I guess you will start to whine as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
A few more that you could post:
1) Our country could use more asylum reception centres.
2) Guns should be illegal.
3) The war on drugs was a waste of money.
Comment has been collapsed.
yes guns should be illegal so that legitimate citizens have a harder time to get them while delinquents will still get them anyway because they dont respect the law in the first place
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh yeah, that totally happens in other countries where guns are illegal too. /s
Comment has been collapsed.
All I'm saying is that for some reason there is a lot more mass shootings in the US compared to other 1st world countries where only delinquents can get guns.
But yeah, silly me. It can't be the legalized firearms. It's probably those dem liberals again.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because guns aren't regulated properly in the US, and any kid can go to a walmart and pick a civilian grade gun without any kind of mental check; whereas here in the EU you'd need a license which costs money to get in the first place, not to mention passing tests to make sure you're well enough in the head to be in possession of firearms.
But no, you're right. It's the legalized arms, not their regulations. We should take their guns away so that when people break into their houses they can get shot instead of just robbed.
Comment has been collapsed.
But no, you're right. It's the legalized arms, not their regulations. We should take their guns away so that when people break into their houses they can get shot instead of just robbed.
Oh yeah, that also totally happens in other countries where guns are illegal on a frequent basis. /s
Comment has been collapsed.
you are right a kid and a mother were not shot not even a week ago in spain that never happened because here in the civilized anti gun world we protect ourselves by thinking negative thoughts towards our home invaders
Comment has been collapsed.
Key word: Frequent.
How many mass shootings do you think it's worth to have to prevent this? Which doesn't seem to be frequent at all since the what you called "last week" was a month ago. So yeah, your sarcasm was right: They where not shot a week ago.
Comment has been collapsed.
3 days ago
2 days ago
Good thing they're not frequent otherwise it would be 3 and 2 minutes ago
This conversation is pointless anyway good luck telling an entire country that part of their culture is bad because "well mass shootings aren't as frequent if you ban guns"
Comment has been collapsed.
Good thing they're not frequent otherwise it would be 3 and 2 minutes ago.
More like hours than minutes, like how frequent gun crime happens in the US (on top of their mass shootings):
https://www.wsaz.com/2022/11/23/officer-involved-shooting-reported-putnam-county/
https://www.kmov.com/2022/11/23/man-shot-killed-downtown-st-louis/
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/23/us/philadelphia-school-shooting.html
This conversation is pointless anyway
Agreed, so I call it here.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not from the US so these issues do not concern me but I'll try to counter:
1) Giving asylum (especially to the middle eastern people) has the potential to destroy society. Just look at Finland and also, the UK grooming gangs.
2) Guns don't kill people, people do. It's not a gun issue at all. It should be strict to buy one (with verification) but not illegal. Criminals will not start following the law suddenly.
3) Technically, as far as I have researched, the American government managed to make billions (albeit in black money) on this so-called war on drugs. So, I agree with that point. But that cannot be stopped at all. I think some recreational drugs should be legalized while hard stuff like heroin and cocaine (and other similar drugs unknown to me) should be still banned.
Comment has been collapsed.
Giving asylum (especially to the middle eastern people) has the potential to destroy society.
Without caring afterwards, yes. Providing asylum and immigration isn't bad per se, quite contrary, however it requires good integration. From both sides.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh crap, I agree with all 3 of those (OK, maybe the 3rd one is a bit more complex issue).
I see another wave of blacklists on the horizon :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha... at least it would be funny when a "liberal" blacklists anyone!
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't remember him, actually. He sounds lovely, tho.
Comment has been collapsed.
20 blacklists so far and counting.
I hope you are not calling yourselves liberals :D
(oh and Elon Musk is my hero ❤️)
Comment has been collapsed.
You should comment in the Pro Ukraine thread if you really want some blacklists. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Didn't you mean pro-Russia or rather pro-peace? :D
Comment has been collapsed.
People online are too brainwashed to remember when Ukraine was doing nothing but shady deals now that Russia is at war with them. Now that it's Russia doing bad thing the media has told them ukraine is the second coming of christ and we should support them no matter what
Comment has been collapsed.
Self delusion strong with you aint it?
Offtopic - wonderful for you to think thousands killed in Ukraine doesn't matter just because Ukraine was / is corrupt country. I love the mindboggling hypocrisy of you even coming in a thread that talks about saving human life before birth and spewing more of this bullshit. But sure - fuck Ukrainian (and Russian) lives... Obviously doesn't matter since Ukraine used to be corrupt. And you still wonder about BLs?
Comment has been collapsed.
I also received some whitelists from the real liberals apparently ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't understand how it makes them less liberal if they don't want to gift games to you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Blacklisting someone just because their opinion differs from mine doesn't really feel like a liberal approach :)
I have no problems with it, I can fully understand them, but the things don't really match, that's all.
Comment has been collapsed.
It has nothing to do with liberalism whether people want to gift games to you or not because of your opinions. You consider these people baby killers / supporters of baby killers after all. You are also supporting of them being stripped of their reproductive rights which many of them feel very strongly about. No need to act dumbfounded why that would earn blacklists.
I can also tell you that you get plenty of blacklists for voicing liberal opinions, too. Or any kind of opinions frankly.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are also supporting of them being stripped of their reproductive rights which many of them feel very strongly about.
No, I don't. And I don't think they are "baby killers" either, they just support them, but they aren't baby killers themselves.
As of today, you can more openly talk with conservatives about any topic, than with so-called "liberals". I love classic liberals, but they are hard to find nowadays.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, I don't.
Yes, you do. You'd ban most abortions. That's stripping away rights per definition.
And I don't think they are "baby killers" either, they just support them, but they aren't baby killers themselves.
You know what's funny. According to the other side's view a few weeks old foetus is not a baby / person. But according to you they are yet you are fine with killing innocent persons just because they are a product of rape. So it's actually you who support killing innocent babies in certain circumstances. I find your position quite inconsistent.
Also if a fouetus is a person do you support treating them like one in all aspects? They deserve a conception certificate, a name and a proper burial even if they are naturally flushed out in 5 weeks, no? They were a living person tragically taken too soon from us.
As of today, you can more openly talk with conservatives about any topic, than with so-called "liberals".
This is a bit rich coming from a Hungarian seeing the media situation in our own country.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's stripping away rights per definition.
LOL, maybe your definition. Abortion is not a right - or if it is what about the right to live? That's murder "per definition".
A fetus with heartbeat is pretty much a baby, a person. Rape and endangered pregnancy cases are VALID reasons for a woman to choose abortion, it's not a prolonged method of contraception. This perfectly makes sense I think.
Or would you punish innocent women who were the victims of rape or whose lives are in danger because of their pregnancy and bring them onto the same level as careless women who don't care about anything? I admit, that's kind of liberal, but I would rather call it chaotic.
Ja, hogy te is magyar vagy? :D
Mivel angolul és németül is olvasok, nem, nem gondolom, hogy a média helyzete rossz lenne Magyarországon - sőt, szerintem sokkal jobb helyzetben van a németnél. Bármit leírhatsz a miniszterelnökről, nem visznek el a rendőrök és nem nem veszíted el a munkahelyed, nem úgy mint pár nyugat-európai országban vagy pl. Oroszországban. És ez rendben is van így :)
Comment has been collapsed.
LOL, maybe your definition. Abortion is not a right - or if it is what about the right to live? That's murder "per definition".
Abortion was a federal right in the US that was just delegated to the state level and then taken away in several states but still a right in many others. Abortion still is a right in Hungary (and absoulutely not murder by law) though they made a small step towards making it harder recently. It doesn't matter what you think about it being a right or not in this regard. Rights are defined by laws. And on top of that you'd be very much a minority in both the US and Hungary with your opinion about it being murder.
You didn't understand my point about the rape exception, I think. You already think that the fetus' rights trump the rights of a woman to her own body. So it's just illogical that you'd allow an innocent baby killed for whatever reason no matter the emotional and physical distress it causes to the woman. You want to judge what amount of distress is enough to justify killing an innocent person (by your definition)?
and bring them onto the same level as careless women who don't care about anything?
Don't you realize how awful this characterization sounds? Do you think abortion is like a Sunday picnic?
As for the media situation in Hungary:
The vast majority of traditional media is owned by Fidesz basically and financed by goverment owned companies advertising in them. On top of it the goverment outright spends billions on advertising the same political viewpoints. It's a constant barrage whether you open Facebook, youtube, turn on your television or go out on the street. Online news space is not much better either where on top of the constant goverment ads the two major independent news sites have been bought by Fidesz and brought over to their camp. Even some of the opposition media is owned by Fidesz affiliated businessmen. Public, state owned media is totally one sided too with opposition viewpoints basically never shown in them. Also Fidesz politicians basically only ever talk to their own friendly media and not anybody that would ask a single hard question, with very few exceptions. There's very limited public discourse in Hungary left by now. Non-Fidesz media has a tiny fraction in funding compared to Fidesz media and has a lot smaller reach, too. Yes, you can say whatever you want where basically nobody will see it. But you can lose your job for your opinion if it's at a public company or a Fidesz-affiliated one.
Comment has been collapsed.
It doesn't matter what you think about it being a right or not in this regard
No point in arguing then, right? :D
Well, I tend to value JUSTICE above LAW, preferring the former serving the latter, not the other way around. If a law is bad, it should be changed, it doesn't have to rule forever. I'm very glad that the new Hungarian "heartbeat" bill will be used and if it can save just a handful of lives, it was definitely worth it.
About the media situation in Hungary:
You are talking about traditional media. Surely you can't claim (at least not with a straight face, I hope :D) that the majority of the OVERALL media is in near-Fidesz hands: Telex and 444 are the most read internet news sites based in Hungary and they are all serving foreign interests. You know it as well just as I do, that state media had to expand because the media situation was terribly inbalanced ever since the '89 system change (when the post-communists and their neo-liberal bosom friends monopolized it).
But even if we look at the traditional media (their role is rather insignificant as of today), you have plenty to choose from: HVG, 168 Óra, Magyar Narancs, Jelen, Népszava, Rtl-klub, Magyar hang, etc.
And left-liberals are more commonly known to refuse to give interview to right-wing media, calling them "propagandists" (which seems like a rather easy way to evade tough questions :))
But you can lose your job for your opinion if it's at a public company or a Fidesz-affiliated one.
That's an urban legend, I've never met anyone who lost their job because of that. Of course sabotaging and openly resisting a work may result in losing someone's job, but that can happen anywhere.
Comment has been collapsed.
No point in arguing then, right? :D
If you don't understand the meaning of 'right', then no. Fact of the matter is women do have a right now that you want to take away from them.
You are talking about traditional media. Surely you can't claim (at least not with a straight face, I hope :D) that the majority of the OVERALL media is in near-Fidesz hands: Telex and 444 are the most read internet news sites based in Hungary and they are all serving foreign interests.
I surely can. Telex and 444 are not the most read news sites in Hungary, not even close. Those are origo, index and 24.hu. You are outright lying. And yes, if we subscribe to the idea that Fidesz is the state at this point then Telex and 444 are indeed serving foreign interests. Otherwise no.
The situation with regards to traditional media is abysmal. Fidesz media basically has infinite resources compared to the others. There are a few independent publications trying to survive on the market while Fidesz has a huge media empire running on taxpayer money. The examples you gave are all small publications with very low reach except for RTL Klub which is a commercial TV channel with a few news segments per day.
And left-liberals are more commonly known to refuse to give interview to right-wing media, calling them "propagandists" (which seems like a rather easy way to evade tough questions :))
State and Fidesz media doesn't even give a platform to opposition figures usually. You are probably referencing a recent scandal where an opposition mayor refused to answer questions of a 'journalist' from the very lowest tier of Fidesz propaganda media that made remarks about her before that any decent person would be ashamed to do. This happened on the largest 'independent' news channel of the country which is in fact owned by a Fidesz-affiliated cult leader. And the sheer gall to claim the above when Orbán hasn't accepted a public debate with a political opponent or an interview with non-controlled media since forever. You must be living in a mirror world.
Hungary is a Patomkin democracy where the democratic institutions are in place but totally neutered and where the playing field is so lopsided it's basically pointless to even hold elections. Fidesz is the state and even some of the opposition is in their pockets.
That's an urban legend, I've never met anyone who lost their job because of that.
Just one example, Hrutka János. And I'm not saying that it surely happens but that it's a possibility, especially if you are someone more visible. Nobody cares about what a nobody at a Fidesz oligarch's company rants about on Facebook.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, we arrived to kindergarten level now or so it seems :D
For you it's a right, for me it's the killing of an unborn baby and I think you are wrong. It happens. Fortunately more and more people see the way I see it and less people see it your way.
I wasn't lying, sadly a lot of people use telex and 444 as their primary (and often only) source of information even if by 444's own account, they are mainly a gonzo site. 24.hu is another left-liberal site, true, which also justifies what I stated.
"Independent pulbications" you say... well I would like to know which media fall under this category... just for fun :)
I stand by my opinion: the democracy in Hungary works much better than in many western EU countries, who think that participating a pride march or kneeling will erase the dark spots from their history and criticize some eastern countries because of the lack of "rule of law" while they are neglecting their own poblems for example regarding national minorities.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can all the anti choice pro authoritarian users blacklist me please so I don't have to keep coming into this thread to blacklist all of you? Thanks
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha, thanks. I would add you to mine but you were already on it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Fascinating, I see you bl'd me, curious as to why? I don't think it has to do anything with this thread since clearly I've picked the other side, but I don't remember you or interacting with you anywhere else. Did you lose an argument against me somewhere? Either way I've returned the favor to make sure you don't ever get to change your mind somehow, but wouldn't mind hearing as to why if it made any sense.
Comment has been collapsed.
User
Added
reigifts
10 months ago
You're right, doesn't have anything to do with this thread. I don't remember why I added you to the BL.
Comment has been collapsed.
I couldn't find you in any of the threads from 10 months ago but it's probably related since there were 4 threads where I also shared my opinion. Two threads about the egs, one about a hentai 3 match game, another regarding a shovelware game where even the main base of the game was an asset but the game was still overwhelmingly positive and the dev did that with multiple or all of his games.
No stress tho was just curious take care.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hey dude! I'm all for the choice. I just want to call things with their real name!
Thanks for blacklist though!
Sure - reading with understanding is hard.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh no!
You locked me from entering one of 3 public giveaways you created during last 3 years! I'm mentally broken now.
Comment has been collapsed.
You shameless whitelist farmer :) And yes, it totally worked.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know anything about the guy and frankly I don't care enough to check even the article you linked to.
That said, while I completely disagree with (presumably?) his opinion about abortion for a number of reasons (hooray for depression), it's just that- an opinion. Forming an angry internet mob with the intend of causing as much damage as possible for it is absolutely abhorrent. How is trying to forcefully curb-stomp someone's point of view into the ground any different from what that Texas law is doing, huh?
I wonder if you'd still support cancel culture if someone in support of abortions got (publicly) witch hunted for it...
Oh, whoops, couldn't keep my opinion to myself. Can't wait for people to decide I'm pure evil for thinking differently from them and need to be "punished" for it. :D
PS: Please move this to Off Topic.
Comment has been collapsed.
Depends to what degree they support abortions. I don't think there's much discussion that Texas's old law was a little too loose as well. Previous abortions were allowed up to 21.6 weeks, aka 5 months pregnant abortions. That's disgusting if you ask me, as there's definitely something living there at that point. But not allowed at all is a whole different scenario, also a jump from 21.6 to 0. I'd say it's completely fine to cancel someone who says you should be allowed to abort babies at like 9 months since it's their body, I think most people would agree that's insane and a life must be protected. In that case, cancel them yes, why not? Just as well as it's okay to cancel someone who says it's normal that a raped woman should still deliver the baby she's forced to have. That's pretty insane, regardless of how you look at it. If only all rape victims could just transfer all their pain and the babies to him. Maybe we should make a device so that the people who vote for these things have to also endure the same pain for the entire period as someone who is forced to go through this. Do you think his opinion would change?
His opinion has impact, he has followers, he does have a high position in a company. It's important that our bosses in the world care for the people, and everyone should be concerned with that. People disagree with his opinion but there's so many that don't want to hurt his feelings. Did he think about yours, or the feelings of the person he's going to hurt before he posted? Did he apologize afterwards, no he went on tv to claim how this affected him negatively. Like, yeah, it should, right? Feels like the right thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
...I'm not sure how I'm even supposed to begin responding to that (sorry, not much of a "debates" person)... I mean, I could just say "What Melusca said above in a much clearer way than I ever could." but that's too... dismissive.
So... there is a "too loose" just like there is a "too harsh" for you, eh? Wonder how you'd feel about someone being forced to go trough an unwanted pregnancy because she found out about it juuuust above your "too loose" mark. But, anyways, I'll come back to that later.
A device to make people experience the pain of others, eh? Well, we have something like that- it's called words. Would his opinion change? Maybe, maybe not.
I don't wanna make too many assumptions, but I kinda wonder- why do you think he has that opinion? Does it... benefit him somehow? Yeah, it doesn't screw him over like it does women... but it doesn't screw me over either (not from the US, not a woman) yet I still see it as wrong. So, why does he have that opinion then? Well, my assumption about how people form their opinions and decide on their actions is that everyone thinks they are doing the most just, "best compromise" thing they can. Yeah, some are sociopaths so they don't care about hurting others for "fun", but this isn't an abuse case. And some are in desperate situations, but this isn't that either. So, in his mind, the pros (whatever they are...) must outweigh the cons. Why would an angry Internet mob forcefully "canceling" him change any of that at all? Did anyone find out why he thinks that law is ok and try to explain otherwise?
Oh, he didn't think about the feelings he'd hurt? Did the people "canceling" him think about how that would affect him or those around him? If he really got depression, do you think things were just peachy for whatever family and closed ones he has? (Do you have any idea how horrible depression is?! I wouldn't wish it even on the ruthless monsters at the very top.)
People formed an Internet hate mob to attack him and you say he should... apologize?! No, this does not feel right at all.
Anyways, to go back to the "too loose" thing. Now, I don't know much about the technicalities of abortion and if it's even possible after a certain time, but if there are no risks to worry about and both parents (or if the "donor" is "unavailable" or criminal, just the mother) agree they'd rather not have a baby, then by all means end its suffering. Even if it's post-birth (though I'm not sure why they would ever go that far in the first place if they didn't want it; though also probably best to search for a family that wants a baby at that point to hand it over to). No, a miserable existence filled with suffering is not worth protecting. Better to end it sooner... rather than later when it'd generate suffering for even more people.
Anyways, you say it's just fine to "cancel" such a world view, right? Well, if you want to, add me on Steam and I'll give you my exact address so you can "silence" me for good. I'll even help. ^_^
...Fuf... ok, I may have gotten a bit angry there. Sorry about that. But when I saw you and OP's complete indifference to depression mine flared up in full force. I guess I should probably delete all that stuff (like I usually do) and leave just the first tiny paragraph. But, y'know what, fuck it, at this point I don't even care anymore. Just end me.
Comment has been collapsed.
A. "So... there is a "too loose" just like there is a "too harsh" for you, eh? Wonder how you'd feel about someone being forced to go trough an unwanted pregnancy because she found out about it juuuust above your "too loose" mark. But, anyways, I'll come back to that later."
I think everyone has some limits right. To me it seems wrong to have an abortion at the 5 month mark because fetuses have heartbeats at that point if I'm researching right. If it has a heartbeat I definitely think it's wrong to kill it. At the same time, to go from a rule that allowed it up to this point, to nothing at all, is a little crazy to me, because it's like no one considered what if someone is put into this bad situation, should we force them to. No one thought that maybe we shouldn't force people of already unfortunate situations to have to go through more unfortunate situations? I wouldn't want to put that on anyone else. But apparently a certain group of people didn't care about those individuals` suffering, and they don't to this date.
B. "A device to make people experience the pain of others, eh? Well, we have something like that- it's called words. Would his opinion change? Maybe, maybe not." Now I know you know this, but clearly the pain and suffering, the uncomfortable living, the depression that comes with such an event cannot be equalized to someone being hurt by words. Sure you can definitely hurt some people with words, wont work on everyone so I think it's already bad, I think I was talking more about putting them through the same event in some form of way and for the same duration right. There cannot be any better way on this planet for them to have this experience and be certain of when they can claim this isn't as big of a deal as others make it seem. Like to me it then seems fair game. If we are wiling to put others through pain, we definitely should have the dedication to experience it ourselves. Otherwise how do we really know how bad it is? Part of the reason why many are against things like slavery, racism, abuse, rape, murder, forced to deliver a baby, etc. is because we ourselves would do absolutely everything to not be in that situation. So we take those sides trying to protect those victims or prevent more victims, because we don't want to be treated that way, ever. If it wouldn't bother us and we'd be comfortable with that then of course we would have reasons to explain as to why we can take the stance of
C. "I don't wanna make too many assumptions, but I kinda wonder- why do you think he has that opinion? Does it... benefit him somehow? Yeah, it doesn't screw him over like it does women... but it doesn't screw me over either (not from the US, not a woman) yet I still see it as wrong. So, why does he have that opinion then?"
It could benefit him somehow, I don't know to be honest ,since he never elaborated on his reasons on taking the stance, only declared it. My biggest guesses are religion or ignorance. Maybe he just likes to feel in control. I'm not sure if this applies to every religion, but in most abortion is considered murder under any circumstance, and as such a sin. Therefore, there is no possible way someone who can claim they follow one of these religions would ever support a law that allows women to abort. By definition now, you have all these religious people who have to vote for an abortion ban. I mean these people don't just sprout out of nowhere and not everyone might be a sane individual like you or me. Some people are brainwashed by books written to keep them in check and they are willing to go as far as they need to achieve their goals. They just act holy, cause they think it is. If it's ignorance, maybe this person is very rich, which he is (estimated net worth of 15 million dollars) and so spending time understanding other people is useless to him when he can just control them. After all, he's powerful, he has a great title and position, he's secured for life, what exactly could he do wrong, when so far he's been so successful? It plays into their ego. I mean even after being canceled, this guy wasn't even scratched, kept all his shares, kept his pay, and is still secure for life. Nothing changed for him. Yet he thinks he got canceled because people were upset so the company removed his ceo title. Didn't apologize for his belief, didn't try to understand the other party. He was upset he didn't win this time like he always does, he's always been a winner, but this time he didn't win and he just can't understand. How dare we peasants tell him his views could be wrong, hes so much better than us. We're just trash as are all women's rights, right? I mean what character do you deduce from him, the good loving husband that would support his wife in all her choices, or the one who would tell her where she belongs and tell her what she can and can't do with her body? He already made his choice public, but I'm interested what you think.
Maybe it seems like I antagonize him, but in a sense, if you look at someone who spends their time volunteering at a homeless shelter, you'll get the impression that person is a good person. If you read that a big rich person stole billions from people, you'll probably assume they're a bad person. If you have someone who supports the freedom of the other sex to make a choice generally you'll think this person made the right choice, and if you have someone who is against the other sex making a choice with their body you'll generally have a bad impression, I'd assume. Unfortunately big large scale analogies are easier for me to demonstrate how certain thinking even when reduced to a small scale is fundamentally the same.
D. "So, in his mind, the pros (whatever they are...) must outweigh the cons."
He never however tried to defend his view through any arguments. Whatever his pros in his mind are that make him believe what it is, if he can't form arguments that seem logical that others can look at and go "ah yes, then I suppose it makes sense why a victim of rape should have to still carry the baby of her rapist" then his pro's in his mind cannot be good at all, and therefore it only helps accentuate why his opinion is bad. If you can't defend your own view, it means you lost the argument. It's ok to be upset, it's ok to cry about it, but if you can't find any supporting evidence that proves that it's the right thing to do, then it's probably wrong. His argument doesn't exist, hence why it's not there and the opposition doesn't actually have it. That's why there's a mob of upset people that someone decides for these women.
Comment has been collapsed.
E. "Why would an angry Internet mob forcefully "canceling" him change any of that at all? Did anyone find out why he thinks that law is ok and try to explain otherwise?
Oh, he didn't think about the feelings he'd hurt? Did the people "canceling" him think about how that would affect him or those around him? If he really got depression, do you think things were just peachy for whatever family and closed ones he has? (Do you have any idea how horrible depression is?! I wouldn't wish it even on the ruthless monsters at the very top.)
People formed an Internet hate mob to attack him and you say he should... apologize?! No, this does not feel right at all."
To the same degree that he didn't consider those poorer people's feelings and situations, I believe even more so poorer people are at a much higher disadvantage than him, and should not consider his feelings when he gets upset. Again, this isn't about something equal. He might lose his job but a woman that gets raped has to live 9 months with her rapists baby inside of her. With all due respect, I'd lose my job any day over the other latter. I wouldn't even be upset, I'd probably be relieved I was able to avoid such hardship. I'm just saying. They're not comparable at all because one is a horrific event, the other would just kinda suck. Now lets remember, he didn't actually lose his job, he maintains his same amount of pay, he still works at the same company, and he is already retired in a sense, as he is well off than any of us poor bastards. Even if we did get him to lose his job, he can still afford with the money to live beyond comfortable without lifting another finger in his life. And he could trash talk all he wants. But he went on a show not to express remorse and consideration for these people he hurt, rather his disbelief that someone can get canceled like this, when he wasn't really even canceled in the end? Like what hardship has he suffered? He's depressed and suicidal because he couldn't go on social media and make any more controversial posts? That's like crying irl and cutting yourself over tiktok deactivating your account when you haven't logged in 25 years and all you posted was pornography. It just doesn't add up, and unfortunately it holds no significance. To care for him being "canceled" is ridiculous. It's like shedding tears of joy that a kardashian member woke up today and posted a bikini pic. Parasocial relationship with someone we don't know.
As for it affecting those around him, I hope his friends, family, coworkers, etc. wake him up and he starts having his 7 years at home with his mom and dad so they can teach him some morals, maybe he'll be a bit more considerate of other human beings. It's not like I want them to get depressed on his behalf, but rather embarrassed that someone they know would throw the rights of others away for his belief, when it wasn't even pertaining to his sex. Either stop associating with him if he doesn't change(which he hasn't shown remorse from what I can see but if I'm wrong let me know), or work towards making him understand why he's wrong and figure out if he has a mental problem.
In my opinion, he's the one that posted his belief first, and he didn't care about others` opinion, then when he got canceled, I don't think he's in any position to say "others don't care about my opinion". I mean he didn't care about theirs, why should they care about his? They should have to put in the extra steps and effort and be considerate on his behalf and situation, but it's okay for him to disregard their rights? It is not okay no.
F. "(Do you have any idea how horrible depression is?! I wouldn't wish it even on the ruthless monsters at the very top.)"
Yes I do. I would rather not talk about my situation, but I don't think I have it as nearly bad as others, maybe that helps me, I always look around to realize the things that get me are somewhat insignificant compared to someone else's pain, for instance a pregnant woman forced to carry her rapists baby. As for wishing it on people I don't, but I can't say I would care if it affected the "ruthless monster at the top". I'm not the kind of person to have compassion for those who can spend their time hurting others. I'd rather prevent it, and if they have to be sacrificed in the process, so be it, because they could be the reason why someone who is inherently good could end up depressed.
G. People formed an Internet hate mob to attack him and you say he should... apologize?! No, this does not feel right at all.
I mean, people wouldn't have formed an internet hate mob, had he not shown his support for the abortion ban which for instance as I mentioned many times, decides that a raped woman will still have to carry the baby of her rapist. The mob was only formed after he showed his support for basically ruining someone elses life. It's not that I think an apology was what he should've done, a genuine apology was needed.
Your hidden paragraphs got dark really fast and I wouldn't want to entertain either idea, and I wouldn't consider that canceling someone or silencing in a sense but rather worse. I hope all is well with you and I apologize in advance if I come out mean, I tend sometimes to make myself look like a donkey, which is sometimes necessary.
Lastly, it is my belief that in this life it should be in our best interest to make sure whatever we do, however we do it, we do not go out of our way to cause harm to others, and if we do, that we deserve the worst and we shouldn't expect others` sympathy.
PS: Not sorry for the essay. Laugh at me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Will Fox News die when they are no more boomers? I hope so ...
Comment has been collapsed.
It wouldn't matter, they're all owned by the same people, just giving you different views. If you mean whether that kind of opinion/place will die, the answer is no, because "we have to represent both sides" lmao.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow.
Mighty, proud and powerfull grown men are forced to wear dress and be gay.
Im glad nobody is forcing me to wear it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wtf is forcing them? I find it unbelievable that we still have these discussions. Are so many people really devoid of any empathy?
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.