throwaway6274

> conservative justice at best hold the line on social issues, or continue to move forward.

The difference is that—unlike racial justice, women's rights, and gay rights—in this case abortion was a mistake and so the step forward would be to reverse it. If you go back far enough, society has successfully reversed actions that were at the time considered forward progress.

I don’t understand how you can say something like that with a clear conscience. But then again I don’t understand how China can treat the Uighurs the way they are and sleep at night either. I suppose people just rationalize other people in collective societal delusion as “sub-human” to the point where it’s easy to ignore.

~50% of the population continues to support abortion, so I’d say we have a very long way to go.

> You are in an unenviable position

Yep, it doesn’t seem to be a common position, for sure.

I have heard of the American Solidarity Party and like some of their viewpoints, but I think that any consenting adults should be able to have a relationship (and the corresponding legal benefits). I also don’t like the religious motivations behind many of the arguments of the ASP; my views against abortion are secular in nature, and I think the religious arguments probably hurt the pro-life movement as a whole.

How strange, as I’m the opposite. I’m about as anti-conservative as they come: UBI, legalize almost everything, universal healthcare and insurance, but I’m extremely against abortion.

I don’t disagree with you by the way. I find virtue signaling to be rather useless (if not outright harmful to helping causes).

> Not a single virtue signaling white executive that I know of has resigned their position to "increase diversity"

Founder of Reddit: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/tech/alexis-ohanian-reddit/in...

It’s really weird because purity and shaming tactics used to be the domain of the far right (hundreds of years ago). It’s now switched to the far left. I’m a big believer in horseshoe theory. Born in a different household or time period, these personalities would be strong advocates for the other side.

I remember a long time ago in middle school, I read a book called Red Scarf Girl. It is a memoir by a girl during the Cultural Revolution in China. As a middle schooler, I didn’t think too much about the book other than what strange rules such a bizarre society had for how you could interact and what you could say. But the book increasingly keeps coming to my mind lately. During the Cultural Revolution, there were accusations that people were “landlords” or related to landlords. Even rumors of having something to do with the bourgeoisie was enough to elicit swift punishment from the other members of society. If you weren’t vocal about being on the “right side of history”, then you must be adamantly against it and were addressed as such, either by peers or the government. A lot of accusations turned into witch hunts against people, even if the charges were flimsy.

Anyway, I’ve often observed this same sort of behavior in extremist progressive circles, but it sure appears to be spilling into the mainstream a lot more everyday.

Ok, clearly this was posted as a veiled reference to something occurring in current events. I’ll take a guess at the intended subject: Candace Owens?

I don’t support Trump and am not even conservative but look how I got downvoted when I pointed out that someone misquoted him. Sorry, you want to claim that conservatives ignore facts and then proceed to downvote me when I literally reference Trump’s verbatim quote from Twitter to correct your misquoted version?

I almost think Trump keeps winning elections out of a sense of schadenfreude. No one likes the guy, but when you constantly get downvoted and people attempt to silence any minor disagreement from the party line, it sure makes you want to vote for him out of spite (I won’t though).

> "when they start looting, we start shooting"

Umm... except that’s not what he said though. If it was, I would completely agree with you that it is an incitement (more accurately, a proclamation) of violence. But what he actually said was:

"when the looting starts, the shooting starts"

And, per Wikipedia:

"He said that he was not aware of the phrase's 'racially-charged history'. He added that he didn't know where the phrase had originated, and that his intent in using it was to say 'when there's looting, people get shot and they die.'"

So his statement is not an incitement, but a prediction. You may believe that Trump is lying about his intention, but that's a different debate.

Devil’s advocate thought experiment: suppose I was a CEO of a large social media company and my personal view is pro-life. Should I remove pro-choice posts (or censor them with violence labels), or should I allow discussion on the topic even though I personally disagree with it?

I don’t think people can have their cake and eat it too. Either the CEOs of these companies start imposing their personal views on their users or they try to make the platform as neutral as possible. In-between solutions are going to make everyone angry.