227
does anyone else feel enslaved?
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
227 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
49805 readers
371 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
I agree with your premise, but no, I don't feel like the internet is just " echo chambers and any deviation leads you to being banned and blocked shunned and silenced". And anytime I see someone complain about being systematically censored or banned, you've gotta look at what they're posting.
https://lemmy.ml/comment/1697612
https://lemmy.ml/comment/1692669
https://lemmy.ml/comment/1693235
https://lemmy.ml/comment/1696649
https://lemmy.ml/comment/1693539
https://lemmy.ml/comment/1677203
https://lemmy.ml/comment/1676143
https://lemmy.ml/comment/1696276
Just a quick 5 minutes of scrolling. So maybe people dislike what you're saying because what you're saying is anti-LGBT, anti-rights, pro-forced birth, conservative, tankie apologia? Also a fan of Andrew Tate so pro-rape, pro-human trafficking. I mean your record is speaking for itself.
Thanks for doing the digging on the very same suspicion I had. It's kind of amazing how reliable a tell this tone is.
State's rights to do what?
It's always the people you most expect.
How does highlighting the positive aspect of someone's message equate to being pro-rape? I don't think anyone can possibly be pro-rape...
No it's not, why should positions be bannable? What if you got banned for simply having an opinion?
I'd need to know what communities/subreddits it was. But many subreddits restrict types of posting that may be seen as hate speech or against the community's limited scope. Posting pro-tankie stuff to socialist communities, anti-abortion stuff to women's communities, anti-lgbt stuff in general, etc, could get you banned. Most of that is probably fine in more general subs but I can't imagine the pro-Andrew Tate stuff would fly in XX, for instance.
I said in r/atheist that I disagreed with abortion and that got me a permanent ban. Just for that opinion alone, I triedexplainning to the mod but they went on a tirade that I hated women against women's rights etc etc which is completely untrue, I just disagree with abortion.
If you're anti-abortion, you're anti-woman. You can't say you care about women if you deny our right to healthcare. Sorry, but you suck.
That is flawed logic, I want to develop the economy so people can afford to have a family and women don't feel the need to abort their child because they can't afford to have or raise a child. It would be preferable if people took personal responsibility and not have sex if they can't afford children and not delve into hendonism having sex to have fun. I think it's wrong for men to be pro-abortion just to exploit women into having sex without consequences for yourself.
The fact that you think that's the only reason (or even just the main reason) people get abortions shows how you, like most anti-abortionists, haven't bothered to look at the facts and have your head so far stuck in the sand that its not even worth talking to you.
There are other reasons but it's largely to do with being in a capitalist system with the cost of living causing hardship straining the ability to afford a home let alone raise a family.
So are things like non-viable pregnancies due to the inability to afford a home? How about rape? How about a minor kicked out because their parents don't approve, is their inexperience, immaturity, and lack of support just because they can't afford a house? What if it's a viable pregnancy, but the baby will be brain dead and require constant care; is cost of living the only burden the parents have to be concerned about? What if there's only a chance it's non-viable, but delaying the abortion puts the mother at risk; at what percent chance is a person allowed to terminate the pregnancy and not put their body at risk? 50% chance of living? 10%? Less than 1%?
These aren't exceptions, these are the types of reasons people get abortions. Let me say it again with emphasis: These aren't exceptions, these are the types of reasons people get abortions. It is so God damn ignorant to think the main reason people get abortions is because they're poor and can't afford to have kids. And to plow ahead and support anti-abortion legislation isn't just ignorant, it's dangerously idiotic.
As we are already seeing in states that have banned abortion, even ones that have some half assed medical exemption, doctors just won't perform them. Or they'll wait to perform them until it's much more risky; like when the patient is literally bleeding out. What doctor is going to risk getting constantly sued (and let's just set aside how fucking asinine it is to allow lawsuits from third-parties in no way affected) because some jackass isn't convinced it was REALLY medically necessary?
Here's an idea, how about we leave the decision of abortion up to doctors and their patient's? That way, we don't have to try and legislate around all the very legitimate reasons people get abortions. Do you think it's immoral? Great, no one's forcing you to get one and others having them has literally zero impact on your life.
Those are issues yes, however from the information I've looked at the majority of abortions are because of affordability. First off you can't get pregnant just because of getting kicked out of a house, however housing should be allocated for that scenario. You're assuming I would pass laws to ban it, your not seeking out what I intend, the point is to develop the economy and provide for people in abundance so women no longer feel the need to get an abortion because they can't afford to raise a family.
So you don't want to ban it, but rather change the circumstances in society and individual people's lives so they don't want to get them in the first place? Congratulations! You're pro-choice.
The fact you view politics as a zero sum sports game is the problem in pro or anti, us vs them. You're mistaken I'm against the practice I just go about it a different way.
You can be against abortion and still be pro-choice. No one is pro-abortion. You want to go about it in a way that changes the circumstances in people's lives so they choose not to have an abortion. So you do think the person's choice matters. And you can see circumstances for why someone would choose to abort. But note how you don't want to take actually away their choice, just change the circumstances so they don't make that choice. That's because...
You're pro-choice.
No I'm against the practice and I don't believe in the ideology of liberalism I am not pro-choice choice is an illusion presented from the environment.
You don't want to institute a ban, but would rather influence people's choices. That's pro-choice, dumbass. Anyways you cut it, that's pro-choice.
Influence no, a material solution with a planned economy to serve everyone's needs in society so everyone has necessities and luxuries to afford and have a happy and healthy life. My solution goes beyond your simple petty plaster over a gaping wound.
Please keep going with that train of thought
What is your intended outcome of them having a happy and healthy life? Is it so they... choose... not to have abortions?
That they majority doesn't need one because people in a planned economy wouldn't have to the stress of affording a mortgage as housing would be allocated, wouldn't have to worry about work because jobs would be allocated, wouldn't have to worry about utility bills because resources would be allocated for need with the change of the economic calculation and wouldn't worry about inflation causing food prices to fluctuate. Come on it's not that hard to determine the factors.
The intended outcome is to develop the economy, develop the productive forces to provide for everyone in a planned economy. And hopefully bring the death rate down caused by capitalism.
Serious question: do you want to ban abortion before you have developed your country's economy to "provide for everyone", or after?
N.B: 45% of the abortions in the world are unsafe. It is a leading cause of maternal mortality and millions of women are hospitalized each year due to complications of unsafe abortions.
What opinion?
See the reply below, not explaining again
So, bigoted opinions? Yeah those should be banned.
If we're talking about whether or not you like pineapples on pizza, no one gives a damn which way you lean.
If we're talking about human rights, there's a very clear wrong answer. If your 'opinion' falls on the Nazi side of that aisle, this might be your cue to ask yourself "are we the baddies?"
Instead of playing whack-a-mole how about seeing what inflames that ideology in their environment and fix that, at least if they're vocal you can identify them and see where it comes from and fix that instead of forcing them underground and hiding it. No, no opinion should be banned, at least with bigoted opinions there an identifier that there is something wrong in the urban planning in which they live that needs to be fix, your solution is to ban and ignore the problems.
The larger point with pineapple was that where do you draw the line, in the future pineapple might be considered bigoted, just like the saying "stick a n##### on a rape charge" in considered bigoted despite it being normal before my time. In my day disagreeing with someone wasn't considered trolling or hate speech. What is considered hate speech etc is largely down to perspective, being a nerd was considered a bad thing until we appropriated it and turned it into a compliment, would it not be better to turn offense to a compliment and just stop being so damn butthurt?
You're conflating disagreeing with behaving like a Nazi. I don't give a fuck what was acceptable back in your day. Today we draw the line at human rights If you get butthurt at being ridiculed for lamenting at the opposition you face when you try to marginalize other groups, then keep that shit to yourself. Or better yet, make an effort to actually get to know some people from the groups you're directing hatred at - might find you actually start caring about them, and suddenly their rights will mean more to you than the pushback you get for posting slurs online
All I'm saying is why can't you just be a better person and be respectful without being told to or by an authority or the big other, if you need to be told or ordered to be a better person, then your not really a good person are you?
Typing removed should not be an offence, buying a bag of faggots from a van should not be a crime and smoking a removed should not be punishable by law. I would like the UK not to be an Orwellian woke hell hole.