I’m for free speech, but I’m torn on anonymous free speech. If you can’t tell where the speech is originating, it really hampers your ability to analyze it. And if you can’t identify the entity (government, corporation, or person) who originated the speech, how can you as an individual hold them accountable for the shit they say? It just leads to a cesspool, and you can’t even choose to ignore those who have lied to you in the past, because you can’t identify them.
It’s because the US doesn’t do secret trials. By default, everything in the courtroom is open to the public. An open, transparent justice system works really well in a functional democracy, but it’s going to seem hopelessly naïve in our current proto-facist hellscape.
Your mom is so small, she fits inside of a house no problem!
Godspeed, I hope you get to meet your particle.
Ok boomer.
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Waving a trans flag is a good way to prove you’re not a fascist, because Nazis are physically incapable of doing so.
That man could make a mean stew.
Can we get those corneas first though?
You didn’t say “Western countries being developed is a quirk of environment, not the consequence of any innate superiority” though. You said the thing I quoted above. I’m addressing the words you actually said.
Honey, I’m bored. You’re either incredibly dense or unwilling to have a straightforward discussion. I think you should stick to your plan of leaving the internet.
You still haven’t answered why you’re bringing up white supremacist talking points (even for the purpose of “debunking” them).
“I have always assumed that white light-skinned people have a leg up because they’re white light-skinned.“
You’re voicing white supremacist talking points. You don’t even really debunk them in your original post. You just propose an alternative. You still haven’t explained why you felt the need to even bring this line up. Nobody was wondering about skin tone’s role in economic development. Except you I guess.
Seems to me you’re pissed off that you made a stupid argument and people called you out for it. Frankly, you came in with white supremacist talking points and you shouldn’t be surprised that people were distrustful. You got a lot more grace than you deserved from most in this thread. Not from me, admittedly, I assumed you were malicious because you didn’t seem thick. Now I think you’re just overly emotional about the whole thing and it’s clouding your perception.
Did I say I only expect nuance or charitable interpretation from one side? I expect it from both, but I’m not seeing it from you. I see people largely agreeing with you but begging you to reconsider the way you frame your argument. I see you responding only to the negative and evidently not even SEEING the positive responses. You might be right that the internet isn’t a good place for you, you seem ill-equipped to handle even gentle disagreement.
Quite a few people engaged with your argument. If you read back through the responses with a charitable eye you might be able to see it. Those who criticized you were ultimately trying to help you get your point across to others by suggesting you drop the part of your argument that addresses white supremacist talking points. That part of your argument was distracting and largely irrelevant to the conversation, and it made people think you were attempting to covertly inject racist ideas into the discussion (a common white supremacist tactic).
You’re big mad about this, huh? Everyone else is crazy, you’re the only one making any sense. Couldn’t possibly be something wrong with your argument.
People are just trying to point out why you’re getting shit my dude. You don’t want to hear it. If you want to be part of conversations in the future, learning to accept criticism is a skill you might want to work on developing.
Why are you trying to explain this correlation? Nobody else had mentioned skin tone, so you weren’t correcting anyone. You just brought up a completely unrelated correlation out of the blue for no reason? And you’re defending it in comment after comment instead of just saying “sorry that was a non-sequitur, my bad”.
Maybe? Found this in an NPR article:
So you’d just need to find a doctor willing to say she’d die without it. In practice these kinds of exceptions put doctors at risk, so they may be more unwilling to perform abortions in “borderline” cases. They might have opted for some other treatments until your wife got “bad enough” to justify the d&c.
I’m really sorry for your loss, I’m glad the doctors were able to treat your wife promptly and she didn’t have to suffer through the pain and delay many women in Florida will have to endure in the coming years.