It is interesting what goes viral on social media, especially when over 40,000 people retweet an “argument” that is so obviously not serious. Is knowledge about basic human biology really so rare that people think this tweet advances the cause of abortion rights?
Last week at Slate, an article purported to explain “why the anti-abortion movement stopped making allowances for rape and incest.” Let me clear something up: I have been active in the anti-abortion movement for 22 years. The movement itself has never made exceptions for rape and incest. Certain politicians have, but the movement does not. The mainstream anti-abortion organizations such as National Right to Life and the American Life League oppose these exceptions and have opposed them for decades.
What Slate is doing is conflating the compromise of politicians with the stance of the anti-abortion movement itself. This is an understandable mistake (the politicians are the ones passing the laws, after all) but it is nonetheless an inaccurate representation of the anti-abortion movement.
A state representative in Pennsylvania filmed himself harassing and threatening pro-life advocates outside a Planned Parenthood, posting the video online. Since this was an egotistical effort to virtue signal for attention, I will not name the state representative. He does not deserve the fame he seeks. I will instead refer to him as “Self-Righteous Hypocrite Stalker,” or SRHS for short.
SRHS immediately started berating a woman for picketing, engaging in the same behavior he was accusing her of committing. The sidewalk counselor was “shaming” people for doing something they have a constitutional right to do, SRHS said. Of course, abortion is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, but free speech is explicitly protected, so SRHS was attacking and shaming someone for exercising her constitutional rights.
Printed in the Herald-Times, May 18, 2019.
To the Editor:
The city council is considering how to allocate $313,387.18 in funds to social service agencies with $617,394.46 in requests for funding. The $10,000 request by the All Options Pregnancy Resource Center should be an easy “no.”
I posted this on social media in 2016:
So the other day I am going to take the dogs on a walk.
“Tera, do you want to go for a walk?”
She ignores me.
“Tera, come on, let’s go for a walk.”
She ignores me.
“Come here Tera, we’re going for a walk.”
She ignores me.
“OK, I am taking Nano on a walk. Bye Tera! Bye!”
She starts howling and runs over to me. Tera didn’t really want to go on a walk. but there’s no way I was taking Nano without her.
When Facebook justified its ban of “far right” figures with the statement that the network has “always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate,” it did two things that are morally wrong.
First, it conflated violence and “hate.” Speech is not violence, has never been violence and will never be violence. “Hate” is a subjective term, far too often used by both Left and Right to mean “something I disagree with.” By doing this, Facebook downplays the seriousness of real violence against real people.
Second, Facebook cannot simply say nasty things about people without providing evidence. Paul Joseph Watson, at least, has some grounds to argue that Facebook defamed him with their public statements about “violence.” Will Watson file a defamation lawsuit? It would be a very difficult case to win, since his is a public figure, but in my layperson opinion he has a case to make. Even if Watson does not legally have grounds to win a defamation lawsuit, it is grossly immoral for Facebook to claim he did something he did not do.
The West Third traffic impeding devices are a microcosm of a backwards attitude in city government when it comes to public infrastructure and moving traffic. The goal of street design should be to move traffic in an efficient and safe manner. The goal should not be to funnel traffic onto other streets to give a political favor to a specific group of people.
I said a few weeks ago that “I do not judge how you live your life.”
Because some people are incapable of understanding nuance, let me clarify this: That is not and was never intended to be a blanket statement of total amorality. It was written in a very specific context that is clear from the paragraph where that statement appears.
Obviously I do judge immoral and harmful choices. This is easy to understand, if you are not consumed with rage from a bad case of Tibbs Derangement Syndrome.
I sent this e-mail to the Chicago Cubs on May 10.
Note: This is not a call to abandon all discernment. There are people in this world who are morally depraved, and obviously we should call out people who legitimately have bad motives. But our first reaction should be charitable, especially since we would want that from others.
After a fan made a morally neutral gesture that means “OK” at a Cubs game, certain segments of the internet erupted and accused the man of making a “white power” hand gesture. However, this is not generally used as a “white power” gesture. In fact, President Barack Obama has made that same gesture on several occasions, and I am confident that our nation’s first black president is not a white supremacist. You can see examples in a Google Image Search here: http://bit.ly/2Jfu4XI
If you express opinions that the Facebook overlords do not like you can be banned from the site.
Facebook is not a platform. It is a publisher, and should be treated like one.