this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2026
1601 points (99.6% liked)
Political Memes
11682 readers
1865 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think you're another responder to this who has missed what was meant there, not letting your imagination go far enough.
The opposite of an absolute dogma of no abortions is not some abortions. It's all abortions. ... Which is the political philosophy of some misanthropes (some of whom are very rich and powerful).
That’s still not pro-choice. That is anti-life lol. There are only 2 sides to this debate (which really shouldn’t even be a debate because even third world countries like India have better abortion laws than the US).
Oh boy...
* reads the rules before responding... "Be civil".*
... This may be challenging to respond to, as I think I've run out of ability to calmly and kindly clear up the miscommunication/mistake, as your not-even-wrong double-down still misses the point straight after I had clarified (~ or so I thought I had ~ but that seems completely missed), parodying Jam's "thick people" scene. And not only making the not-even-wrong fallacy, but also completely missing the broader principle [pro nuance, not falling for the manufactured divisive psyop'd groupthinks, the variety of perspectives, the other extreme, and especially, not falling for (nor being complicit in) the mutual unwitting abuse of cunningham's law], doubling down even on that, insisting there are only 2 sides... What hope of receiving new information and nuance with that kind of thing going on?
[Perhaps drifting off-topic] When stuff like that goes on, I wonder about chemical lobotomisation via fluoride, mercury, aluminium, aspartame/aminosweet, anti-nutrients, etc, where the fine grain neuro-connections keep getting mowed down before they can facilitate ease of conceiving of new ideas, where the entrenched ideas grow on and on strengthening the pre-existing neuro-connections. Though/And also, again, evokes thoughts of Mattias Desmet's explorations of the psychology of totalitarianism, in the "There are only" (and even the "which really shouldn’t even be a debate"), as that speaks to the reductive certainty of the one true way. Daunting.
... And just before I posted that... Thinking about how daunting it is, how pro division, how anti-nuance, trolling by playing dumb doing the very thing just called out, etc.... And then my concern about my civility (rule 1) turns to my concern about your sapience (or not, as per rule 4 and 5 (no bots, no ai generated content)), and that (as per the old advice "don't argue with fools as onlookers may not be able to tell you apart"), perhaps I should not have succumbed to xkcd386 here. [LOL. Cue the downvotes! (Over the target when taking fire?)]