[ SECRET POST #3253 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

Re: An Opinion

[feotakahari]

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.

Re: An Opinion

[(Anonymous)]

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.

Re: An Opinion

[feotakahari]

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.