Honestly it sounds like every description of conservatives is coming from not only 10 years ago but 20 years ago. Keapernick is a terrible example because he had shoulder surgery and then lost nearly every game of the following season before he was cut by the most liberal team in the league, the San Francisco 49ers, and also to mention he had very key interceptions in playoff games that were all but won. The claim that anything bad that happens based on sex, race, religion are conservatives is patently false. These are every democrats talking points only used to demonize their opposition. Abortions are not under threat at all, unless you count those claiming that you can’t have an abortion after 8 months pregnant when the baby can be born instead. However, this is not cancel culture. It would be cancel culture if someone had an abortion and because of it they were fired from their job. When we talk about cancel culture it is very specific to overreaction, typically losing revenue from millions of views per the direction of big tech censors and even banks and credit card companies these days. I have no doubt both sides are attempting cancel culture and I have no doubt the only ones who can quantify this would be the big tech companies themselves, but the rules posted themselves by big tech align with left leaning ideas it is all but obvious who would be breaking those rules. Reddit for example specifically allows in its written rules hateful speech against whites but disallows it against all the groups you would expect.

> Abortions are not under threat at all, unless you count those claiming that you can’t have an abortion after 8 months pregnant when the baby can be born instead.

Have you been living under a rock someplace?

https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/txpep/research-briefs/senate-...

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-health-...

The Texas law was not supported by mainstream conservatives, it was done by Christians and the federal law is not under threat, this yet another thing meant rile people up to earn votes for a specific party. There is a zero percentage chance the Supreme Court re-hears the case on abortion.

> the federal law is not under threat

There is no Federal law governing abortion. State law governs abortions, subject to Roe v. Wade and subsequent cases that provide a Constitutional right to abortion within certain parameters that the States cannot abrogate.

The Supreme Court is already considering a Mississippi abortion law case (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, nr. 19-1392) that, depending on the outcome, could significantly curtail this right, possibly lowering the deadline to 15 weeks. The decision is expected in June.

> There is a zero percentage chance the Supreme Court re-hears the [Texas] case on abortion.

If they do, will you come back and admit you were wrong?

Federal case law is essentially law. This is all besides my original point that abortion debates are not cancel culture but a political argument. But yes absolutely I’ll admit I was wrong if it ever happens.

> The Texas law was not supported by mainstream conservatives

This is a classic No True Scotsman argument: that law was enacted by Texas Republicans and has been protected by the Republicans at various levels of federal court up to the Supreme Court, and copies of that law are being enacted by Republicans in other states. If you want us to believe that’s not aligned with mainstream conservatism, show that the larger conservative movement is fighting it.

Yeah, it's insane watching this degree of confirmation bias unfold real time just reading this thread.

Directly addressing what this person is saying with the facts isn't going to work, because it's obvious that nothing can convince them otherwise. I think it's better to look at why they've fixated themselves so strongly on this opinion and are so desperate to maintain it.

You are right other conservatives won’t fight against it but it is also only religious conservatives that support it, at least banning abortion per the Texas law. In my own experience in a heavily democrat area, every single democrat I’ve met also support a ban on abortion after a certain period of time and the debate is more over how long or what point after conception until it should be banned.. that point is often swayed lower and I’d argue too low with conservatives, but even as you see in the Texas, it’s still allowable for 6 weeks after, not at birth. Mainstream conservatives rarely call for banning this early barring religious conservatives. And while this may sound no true Scotsman, conservatives are much less religious than they used to be in my experience, the country itself is also much less religious and this is allowing the mainstream conservatives to move away from religion based positions.

1) The law compels people to out abortions and circumvents the law of the land - I.e. the SCOTUS ruling - by forcing it into a civil court matter. You seriously don’t see the issue there? How about democrats pass a parallel law where instead of abortions it’s because you used hate speech? How would you feel about that?

2) 6 weeks is not a long time. Plenty of people don’t find out their pregnant until 4-6 weeks, many later than that. You think it’s right that they can be forced to make that decision with only a few days to consider it? Or worse, that they have to leave the state to get one because they’re past 6 weeks? There are so many problems with this.

You are arguing against things I am not arguing for and never have. Literally I wrote I also thought 6 weeks was too soon in the post you are responding to and you continue to flame me here. Your hypocrisy is getting upset I called your post a lie, when you were completely factually incorrect, as you admitted, all the while in your first response calling me “blatantly dishonest.” I’m sorry but that is literally you calling me a liar first, and using in your explanation lies, even if by mistake. Now, after you are claiming that I am the one flaming you in your other post and saying you will no longer respond, continue to respond and flame me, do you understand why this conversation is not productive from your end?

1) Relax. I wasn’t aware you were the same person. It’s not a big deal.

2) you wrote “you still get 6 weeks,” as if that’s adequate.

I’m sorry you think your brand of conservative politics is the party line, because frankly it isn’t and even you - who I disagree with - deserve to be represented by a party that shares your values. The GOP is the anti-abortion party. They will continue claw back any and every part of a woman’s right to choose until Roe v. Wade is functionally overturned, as they have done for decades. Whether or not that is the majority opinion is irrelevant because they are doing it anyway and your denial of that reality doesn’t make it go away. Much like most Americans don’t want weed illegal anymore but neither party seems interested in making a move at the federal level despite the public mandate.

>The Texas law was not supported by mainstream conservatives

Then how is it currently an enacted law that is also being copied in other GOP-controlled states?

Kaepernick [edit: almost] had a ring. You think the Browns couldn’t have used him? The Lions? The Bengals? Your point is also moot when a former NFL exec confirms he was blackballed for his protest.

https://sports.yahoo.com/in-light-of-george-floyds-death-ex-...

>Colin Kaepernick was not bounced by NFL team owners because of his skill. He was not bounced because of salary demands. And he was not bounced because he wanted a starting job. No, he was rejected by NFL team owners because he became a financial liability, kneeling for social justice and igniting a telling firestorm with President Donald Trump.

You can sit here and argue all day about whether or not they’re within their rights to do it, and frankly I would probably agree with you. They are a business, they have to make business decisions. But to pretend it’s about his skill as a player is blatantly dishonest.

NFL teams have continued to let plenty of players who have suffered injuries and had less-than-stellar records continue to play. If you can demonstrate that there's a clear pattern of players with Kaepernick's on-the-field record being treated similarly, then your argument holds some water; but otherwise, it's just a convenient pretext.

Comparisons to other players are just silly, yes it has happened before but that doesn’t mean anything when it comes down to an individual. I’m not sure what else is needed to explain what makes a poor QB other than losing records in both recent and lifetime stats, injuries, and failure under pressure? If that isn’t a pattern showing lack of skill I don’t know what is. He is also aging as a scrambling QB, everyone knows speed diminishes rapidly with age and when this weapon is only getting worse, and your other weapon, your arm, was injured, then there isn’t much left. He has been scouted by tens and none decided to pick him up, this in itself should be primary evidence that he was give a chance and failed.

> He has been scouted by tens and none decided to pick him up

If you're on the margin performance-wise, and you are also carrying this controversial political baggage, then that baggage is likely going to be the tipping factor. The argument you have to convincingly make is that even without the baggage, Kaepernick would not be playing. That is why comparisons to players with similar performance records are relevant, not "silly."

I think that I am still making a compelling argument on his performance even without the PR issues. I mean the browns just signed a QB with 22 active sexual assault cases, it’s a reach to believe that they would not sign Kaepernick because one time he upset some cops and overzealous fans by kneeling. He takes too much blame for starting that but it was a very popular trend among players afterwards and many players kneel without issue.

You can't talk to people like this here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I was referring to the bias ignorance and pressure that causes there to always be someone on the opposing side of a political topic as per his claim that one executives statement on Kaepernick was true. If you will also note he called me blatantly dishonest when he in fact has provable lies in his statement which he admits.

"Provable lies" come on. I forgot a word, which I corrected. Ease off the throttle man.

I forgot "almost." He's been to the superbowl. He was a superbowl quarterback.

As for lies, did you read the article I linked? A former NFL exec literally admits to it.

Again, as I said that is one persons opinion who through either ignorance, pressure, or bias will choose a political side. We have former military generals claiming there were aliens found but one person’s claim while it makes a story for an article does not represent evidence.

To compare a former exec listing a very possible situation to the ravings about aliens is, once against, blatantly dishonest.

To get back to the original point, I don't know what to tell you. If you think cancelling is a tactic only implemented by the left, then there is a very thick layer of irony in your "one persons opinion who through either ignorance, pressure, or bias will choose a political side" line.

Have a good one man.

This is just common sense in my eyes that you should scrutinize a source when especially if it comes from a very small group or one person with motivations to pick a political side and you will find one person to pick an opposite side in every case. I already stated that cancel culture comes from both sides and we don’t have data to prove this definitively but when the cancellation is an overreaction it is typically coming from one side and in particular on claims of sex, race, and religion. I’m not going to pretend there’s a clear cut line what makes someone right or left but when it comes to specific topics big tech will always lean to one side of the line.

> you will find one person to pick an opposite side in every case

Of course there will be someone with a contrary opinion in almost every controversial issue. The key is to closely scrutinize the competing arguments based on the strength of the argument, the available data, and your moral compass, and make your judgment based on those. Personally, I am biased towards the positions that are based on the most intellectually-rigorous arguments supported by voluminous data; and I'd hope the type of people who frequent HN do the same, regardless of their political affiliation.

>I’m not going to pretend there’s a clear cut line what makes someone right or left but when it comes to specific topics big tech will always lean to one side of the line.

You should check this once a day and see the reality. https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10/status/150666209988752998...

I'm done man. This is just a flamewar at this point.

Several teams have scouted him and given him a chance, are you saying they went through all that effort just to save face?