fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3253 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3253 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Fallout]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Colonel Fitzwilliam, Pride and Prejudice 1995 miniseries]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Master and Commander/Aubrey/Maturin series]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Undertale]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Justified]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Fury, Don/Boyd]

__________________________________________________

08.

(The Pioneer Woman/Ree Drummond)

__________________________________________________

09.

[Interworld]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 038 secrets from Secret Submission Post #465.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

If we (and by we I mean, basically, the left) are going to talk about the ways in which pro-life discourse encourages and justifies violence, and if we want to be even remotely intellectually honest, I think the threat today against the University of Chicago has to compel us to reconsider, at least to some extent, the rhetoric that we ourselves use and the way that we ourselves talk about race and oppression, and whether it has any influence in leading to this kind of thing.

Obviously the analogy is not precise - pro-life discourse issues, and has issued, into real-life violence; our discourse has only issued into threats. But, I mean, come on. If we are serious in thinking that rhetoric and worldview inspires action, if by their fruits you shall know them, then we have to take this seriously as a result of our rhetoric and not just dismiss it as a fluke occurrence. It has to be a moment for critical self-reflection.

I'm not saying it proves any side right or wrong in any argument. I'm just saying, the way that we talk about the issue and frame it.

I have absolutely no idea what any of these three paragraphs mean.

Yeah I think I did that thing where you think about something for so long that you kind of forget where you started

Same. I'm guessing the right sources may explain (at least part of) what OP meant, but since they didn't provide any...

No, I mean, I'm the OP and I did that when I was writing it

I guess to provide the context of what I was thinking about:

- the Planned Parenthood murders, and the way that subsequently a lot of leftist and pro-choice people argued that pro-choice rhetoric has created an atmosphere that helped justify and lead to those and other acts of violence

- the thing where classes at the University of Chicago were shut down today because someone threatened to kill "16 white devils" on their campus in revenge for Laquan McDonald

Again, I'm not equating those two things, by any means - no one actually died in the latter case, and dude did not have a gun. But if you're willing to talk about how the rhetoric and the atmosphere lead to violence in the first case, I think you have to engage with the possibility that the rhetoric and the atmosphere helped lead to the threats in the second case.

If you have a high-school education, you should be able to puzzle it out.

What does a high school education have anything to do with having problem-solving skills

It's a shorthand way of referring to a basic level of education. AKA "if you can read at a reasonably mature level, you should be able to understand this."

This is very insightful, and very true. Over-the-top rhetoric of all flavors is used to justify violence, and it's ridiculous to pretend that the rhetoric on one side or the other is more to blame.

Someone just found a thesaurus.

No, I just wrote it quickly. This is how I write when I'm distracted or drunk or stuff like that.

If you're talking about protests against police violence, the assumption that the situations are even comparable is itself a statement in one direction. If you don't think abortion is murder, it's hard to compare it to some unarmed 12-year-old getting shot, and the appropriate reaction to each might not be the same.

I agree with what you're saying. And I agree, like I said before, that the analogy doesn't fit exactly.

Where I think they're comparable is in terms of mechanism. The argument is, in the case of the pro-life movement, that the vehemence of their words and the absoluteness of their arguments are in part responsible for the violent actions taken by specific pro-life extremists. If you think that's true in the case of the pro-life movement - if you think the kind of language that people use influences the actions that people take - then I think it also has to be true in the case of the protests against police violence.

And in this instance, what happened was that someone threatened to shoot a bunch of white people as revenge for police violence. I don't think that's an appropriate response at all. Bottom line: if you think the rhetoric of the pro-life movement plays a part in inciting extremists to violence, you have to entertain the idea that the rhetoric of the police protest movement played a part in inciting these threats.

Now of course, even in that sense, it's not an exact analogy. Threatening something is not as bad as actually killing a bunch of people. And I'm not trying to say that it is. Nor am I trying to make this an argument against the police protest movement. What I'm saying is that it's important to seriously examine the way that we talk about these things.

Personally, I don't think anti-abortion rhetoric is to blame, at least not in a general sense. The blame is on those who spread outright lies about what Planned Parenthood was doing. Which I guess supports your argument, considering how often rumors and misinformation about police violence and protests spread across Twitter and Tumblr.

The fact that you kept repeating the words "discourse" and "rhetoric," as if you just learned how to use them, makes me not able to take this seriously.

no, again, I just wrote it quickly and didn't edit it. It's brain spew, and that's how I write when I'm brain-spewing. Really. Seriously.

Should OP have said, "tawk"?

Well, I'll be honest, I didn't follow that either, but I don't plan on being a smug cunt (to you) about it.

OP didn't make themselves clear! Let's mock them for it! We're smart people look how smart we are that we can be dicks to strangers!

[ SECRET POST #3253 ]

An Opinion

Re: An Opinion

Re: An Opinion

Re: An Opinion

Re: An Opinion

Re: An Opinion

Re: An Opinion

Re: An Opinion

Re: An Opinion

Re: An Opinion

Re: An Opinion

Re: An Opinion

Re: An Opinion

Re: An Opinion

Re: An Opinion

Re: An Opinion

?

Re: An Opinion