Neologismology
An Honest Question For ProChoice People

blue-author:

anaccountofmylife:

I know there are heated debates and people have been wronged on both sides of the arguments. However, I want to ask one question to pro choice people that will help you understand where pro life comes from.

Put aside your beliefs/biases/experiences please for this question and answer honestly.

"If you honestly believed that a fetus is a human life, wouldn’t you do anything to save it from being killed?"

Because pro life people truly believe, based on science, religion, or personal experience, that every fetus is a human child. Therefore we feel we must do everything in our power to save that life. We don’t always get it right, and there are some people who are cruel and heartless, but at the crux of our argument is that life deserves to be saved.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure that if I truly believed that abortion killed a person, I wouldn’t do anything like what 99% of anti-abortion agitators do.

You put pennies in a box.

You make signs.

You scream misogynistic and violent insults at women who are seeking unspecified health care services at health care facilities, some of which don’t even provide abortions to begin with.

You push laws that target the abortions that are most often life-saving, most often applied to non-viable fetuses.

None of these things really scream “I AM SERIOUSLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE LIVES OF ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS THAT I GENUINELY BELIEVE ARE IN JEOPARDY!” to me, you know?

What they instead speak of is an intense desire to project oneself into a life-or-death conflict, but one without any actual stakes and one that does not require much more than symbolic gestures on behalf of the “believers”. 

As a bonus, you get to feel better than a bunch people just normal people like you. You get to feel like you’re a crusader for truth and justice in a world full of people so evil, they’d kill babies for fun and profit.

And when you’re out on the picket line, you can engage in the deepest, most shameful impulses that a human being can wrestle with as you shout vile things at the people trying to enter the clinic. Actual people, who are often actually at the most vulnerable part of their grown lives, possibly people who are wrestling with health problems, possibly people who are dealing with the devastating reality of finding out that a fervently desired pregnancy is not safe or non-viable… and you can reduce them to tears. Such power! You and your friends can mob up (strength in numbers) and shout whatever you want this person. You can completely dehumanize an actual human being standing right in front of you.

And it’s okay.

Because you’ve got this fig leaf for your conscience where—when it’s convenient to do so, when it suits your agenda and your plans—you convince yourself there are these other actual human beings that you are standing up for.

You’re desecrating the everloving carp out of the human life standing in front of you, but it’s okay, because life is sacred. When it’s convenient. When it’s your alibi. When it’s your sword and shield.

But when it’s not convenient? Forget about it. Oh, man… if you truly believed that millions of tiny precious babies were being systematically murdered, would you be blogging about it? I’m not daring you to go out and prove your convictions by committing violence yourself, but even restricting yourself to non-violent means, don’t you think you would be doing something more than posters and pennies and posts if you really thought that “an American holocaust” (as so many anti-choice folks have crassly put it) was happening?

Man, I’m glad you asked me what we would do if we sincerely believed that there were all these lives at stake, because it really exposes how hollow the “pro-life” movement is.

Though of course, its hollowness hardly needs to be pointed out. It’s weird how many protestant Christian denominations suddenly did a 180 on abortion and the belief that a fetus was a person with a soul when it suddenly became a viable political wedge issue. Did you know that? As recently as 1979, you could have gone to a lot of the most pro-life protestant churches in the country and asked their leaders if fetuses had souls and abortion was murder, and they would have told you no, that’s some Catholic dogma that’s completely against the Bible. And they’d point to passages that suggest that no, God does not see a fetus as being equivalent to a person and send you on your way.

But then, somehow, suddenly… the inerrant word of God changed. Almost overnight. Why? Because the preachers had allied themselves with rightwing politicians, and between them, they saw a goldmine.

Because they understand the real question isn’t: what would people do if they honestly believed that babies’ lives were on the line, wouldn’t a lot of people vote for a politician who takes a bold stance against baby killing, since that demands nothing from the person casting the vote but lets them feel like they’ve done a huge good deed?

So they did that.

And a lot of people fell for it.

You give your votes, you give your money, you give your time to the cause. Not much from each individual, but it adds up. It all adds up.

And you will always do this.

Because baby killing will always be wrong, and it’s not like anyone’s asking you to fight a war, right?

That’s what politicians call a permanent wedge issue. The people who “vote life” can be relied on to vote against their interests, to vote against their neighbors, to vote against politicians who would improve the circumstances that lead people to require abortions.

Abortions go up when social safety nets are cut. Abortions go up when wages go down. Abortions go up when health care costs rise. Abortions go up when sex ed is inadequate.

But “pro-life” voters vote for politicians who are in favor of all of these circumstances that lead to abortions.

Isn’t that weird?

But you’ll effectively vote for everything that leads to abortions, because all you care about is that you get to register your vote against baby-killin’. 

The pro-life stance is about convenience and feeling good. 

Hey, blue-author’s back on my dash.

And once again, she’s totally right. I should probably follow.

philippesaner:

astrophobe:

Read More

image

I tried to reply to your reply to this, but then your reply disappeared. What’s up with that?

I really don’t get screen names.

"Things [Will Be] Like That, Back Then"

medievalpoc:

blue-author:

The thing that always gets me about the idea that the violence, racism, and misogyny in Game of Thrones is expected/excusable “because that’s how things were back then” isn’t just the fact that GoT isn’t a historical novel.

If progress was a steady, linear acceleration through time, they should be way ahead of us. They should be far more enlightened in Westeros than we are in the United States or Europe. Looking at Westeros would be looking at our enlightened future, not our dismal past.

"What are you talking about? It’s medieval fantasy."

Right, but how many years of recorded human history does this “medieval” world have again?

I don’t remember the exact figure, but I can tell you this much:

image

By the notion that human progress in a vaguely European setting should follow some sort of script moving from more brutal and bigoted to less, they should be well out of their “medieval period” and a couple thousand years ahead of us. There’s some give or take, depending on where you try to peg the “medieval phase” as starting. If we take the invasion of the First Men to be something like the Celts reaching the British Isles and displacing/killing the indigenous people, with the Andals then being analogous to either the Saxons or the French… culturally it seems more like the Norman invasion because the Andals seem “farther along”, but that moves the timeline up even further compared to ours.

But forgetting the Andals: Celts settled in Britain no earlier than 2000 B.C., which puts them about 2,500 years before the beginning of the Ye Olde Medieval England that Westeros is supposed to be based on according to the theory of “how things were back then”. According to the mythic history of Westeros, the First Men crossed over *checks* around 12,000 years ago. If we peg that date as about 2,000 BCE in real-world terms, then the approximate start of the medieval period in Westeros (again, according to the theory that progress is a matter of counting years) would have to be 9,500 years ago. If all medieval periods are about the same—which again, is the underpinning of the theory that “things were just like that back then”—then this period would have given way to something like a renaissance about 1,000 years later, or around 8,500 years ago.

Now, our renaissance kicked off about 500 years ago, so Westeros is about 8,000 years “more advanced” than we are.

"But wait! You said ‘mythic history’! Nobody knows when the first men really arrived."

By crumb, you’re right. Nobody does know that. But you know what they do know? When the wall went up. It’s been continuously staffed and watched by the same organization for a mind-blowing 8,000 years. If we wanted to get all meta, we could even imagine that formal written history in Westeros might have grown out of the Night’s Watch need to keep records.

So the invasion of the First Men could have happened more recently than 12,000 years ago, but no sooner than 8,000 and the time it would take for them to get established across the continent. But even if we assume that they could have come over just in time to build the wall… okay, medieval period begins 2,500 years later. That’s 5,500 years ago. Renaissance begins 1,000 years after that, that’s 4,500 years ago.

Even by the most generous estimate available, Westeros still has 4,000 years of enlightened modern living on us European-descended humans.

Obviously the reason they aren’t 4,000 years more sophisticated and enlightened than we are is… well, it’s a fictional world whose author requires it to be “medieval” and brutal, but more to the point, progress doesn’t work this way. The only reason their society and history mirrors ours at all is that the author has dictated that they should. Seriously. The fact that they even count the turning of years the way we do is really bizarre. The idea that they would come up with the same sort of feudal agrarian culture that we did given the completely different growing seasons and completely different logistics of keeping the population fed is mind-boggling.

We can—we must—accept that these things happened, because they are part of the premise of the story. But the narrative doesn’t assert that the sociopolitical progress of their world is somehow in a parallel, delayed synchronization with progress in ours, and in fact, it very obviously isn’t.

The bottom line: Westeros is not in a medieval Europe phase of progress. It’s in a modern Westeros phase of it. Appealing to “things were like that back then” is no more meaningful an excuse than is saying “things are like that now” about a present situation.

I really like the perspective you’ve added here. I’ve discussed the myth of linear social progress and the projection of that many people are willing to do onto fictional worlds, including that of GoT/ASOIAF. None of this would be necessary if it wasn’t for the bone-deep conviction on the part of some fans that this particular work of fiction can excuse it flaws and some very questionable choices on the part of the author with “but, historical accuracy!”

In the end, the facts are that the books and the show are racist, misogynist, and violent because people chose to make it that way. These problems are compounded upon the insistence that these narrative choices are not only true to history or “realistic”, but the implication that the creators of the book/show are somehow fettered by or forced into these narrative choices.

Intellectually I’m aware that linear social progress is partly a myth, but I find it very hard to shake the assumption that things naturally get better over time. It seems to be very deeply built into my worldview.

Not sure why.

Anyone else have the same problem?

Okay, maybe it’s not entirely a problem, but you know what I mean.

cellohray:

peaceshine3:

Via: SanCopha League

Yes

When you fear “drama” and controversy you will inevitably find yourself on the side of whoever’s in charge. Dominant powers love peace.

cellohray:

peaceshine3:

Via: SanCopha League

Yes

When you fear “drama” and controversy you will inevitably find yourself on the side of whoever’s in charge. Dominant powers love peace.

Why do you hate the john green thing? Just curious.
Anonymous

strangeasanjles:

whitegirlsaintshit:

because fuck john green

  • he’s creepy as fuck. he does this weird thing where he fetishizes nerdy girls and shit. and it’s very fucking creepy to characterize young women when you’re, like, 40. and misogynistic. all the girls in the books are supposed to be these cutesy ass bookworm bitches that are lowkey sexy and probably wanna do shit like ride dick to a white-washed blues song. i’m not with it. and there’s nothing wrong with that, but when you look down on other women, or female-identifying people, you’re a piece of shit.
  • all of his characters are pretentious as fuck. what fucking teenager with cancer takes a cigarette out and walks around with it in between his lips without smoking it? like, if you’re going to go through this whole spiel about metaphors and shit, you can cancel that, because you literally just paid for… nevermind. nawl. fuck it.
  • all his books seem like a damn (500) days of summer, perks of being a wallflower, twilight ass mashup. anyone can predict what the fuck is going to happen by looking at the damn cover. some whiny ass white boy living in a boring world finds a white girl with the Emma Watson haircut reading a book or some shit and she has something unique about her (i don’t know, something that’s wild ableist and insensitive to write in a book, say, cancer), and he falls in love with her, instantly puttin her on a pedestal. they listen to the smiths and scoff at people who play Migos, call themselves misanthropes, run through the city and eat deli sandwiches in the park, then kiss in an alleyway. somewhere in the book, green will trash the girl (maybe she moves, or she dies, or something), and then the boy moves on with wispy eyes and a hard stare with a cigarette tucked behind his ear that he never lights.
  • he’s one of those pseudo-intellectual assholes that thinks that people with a certain kind of smarts are better than those who aren’t seen as conventionally smart (conventionally smart meaning the “white” kind of smart: perfectly enunciated words, coiled up, reading a book while pushing a pair of glasses up their nose, and containing a lot of angst about the world around them because everyone is “devolving into an idiot”)
  • plus, he’s just a ugly nerdass and i don’t care for him or any of his damn work to be on my dashboard. go read something better. fuck that christmas lights in your bedroom ass nigga.

Plus, he manipulated his way into a date with his wife by inviting several friends out to a movie, then secretly telling them all not to show up except her and if you don’t think that’s some deceitful, creepy-ass shit, then you have a problem.

Thank you.

I’ve been curious about the story behind John Green hate for a while, so this is pretty helpful to me.

Though I do feel a bit weird thanking someone named “whitegirlsaintshit” for saying “when you look down on other women, or female-identifying people, you’re a piece of shit”.

The false predictions in old threads are kind of entertaining, though. It’s pretty funny to see someone very confidently spout complete rubbish, absolutely certain that they know best.

Especially when they’re talking about how Wizards is killing the game, or about how inevitably some kind of ridiculous cash-grab is approaching.

I should probably stop reading forum threads about Magic. The whining is getting to me.

whereismyhoverboard:

image

cis gay men strike again

Cis gay men with bad grammar, to boot.